' 


HE  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


II 


i 


ROOSEVELT  EDITION 


VOLUME  13 
THE  CHRONICLES 
OF  AMERICA  SERIES 
ALLEN  JOHNSON 
EDITOR 

GERHARD  R.  LOMER 
CHARLES  W.  JEFFERYS 
ASSISTANT  EDITORS 


' 


►- 


. 


. 


. 


' 


. 


- 


•  * 


■ 


. 

S  - 


THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION,  PHILADELPHIA, 

1787 

From  a  photograph  of  the  mural  painting  by  Violet  Oakley  in  the 
Pennsylvania  State  Capitol,  Harrisburg 
Copyright,  Violet  Oakley  Copyright,  Curtis  &  Cameron 


THE  FATHERS 
OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


A  CHRONICLE  OF  THE 
ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  UNION 
BY  MAX  FARRAND 


NEW  HAVEN:  YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
TORONTO:  GLASGOW,  BROOK  &  CO. 
LONDON:  HUMPHREY  MILFORD 
OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

1921 


!  v  V* 

1  • 


Copyright ,  1921,  by  Yale  University  Press 


CONTENTS 


I.  THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 

II.  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY 

III.  THE  CONFEDERATION 

IV.  THE  NORTHWEST  ORDINANCE 

V.  DARKNESS  BEFORE  DAWN 

VI.  THE  FEDERAL  CONVENTION 

VII.  FINISHING  THE  WORK 

VIII.  THE  UNION  ESTABLISHED 
APPENDIX 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE 

NOTES  ON  THE  PORTRAITS  OF  THE 
MEMBERS  OF  THE  FEDERAL  CON¬ 
VENTION 

INDEX 


Page  1 
“  22 
“  35 

“  55 

“  81 
“  108 
“  125 
“  143 

“  167 
“  219 

“  225 
“  239 


Vll 


I 


ILLUSTRATION 

THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION, 
PHILADELPHIA,  1787 

From  a  photograph  of  the  mural  painting 
by  Violet  Oakley,  in  the  Pennsylvania 
State  Capitol,  Harrisburg.  Copyright, 

Curtis  and  Cameron.  Frontispiece 


JX 


FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 

“The  United  States  of  America”!  It  was  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  that  this  name  was 
first  and  formally  proclaimed  to  the  world,  and  to 
maintain  its  verity  the  war  of  the  Revolution  was 
fought.  Americans  like  to  think  that  they  were 
then  assuming  “  among  the  Powers  of  the  Earth  the 
equal  and  independent  Station  to  which  the  Laws 
of  Nature  and  of  Nature’s  God  entitle  them”;  and, 
in  view  of  their  subsequent  marvelous  develop¬ 
ment,  they  are  inclined  to  add  that  it  must  have 
been  before  an  expectant  world. 

In  these  days  of  prosperity  and  national  great¬ 
ness  it  is  hard  to  realize  that  the  achievement  of  in¬ 
dependence  did  not  place  the  United  States  on  a 

footing  of  equality  with  other  countries  and  that, 

1 


2  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

in  fact,  the  new  state  was  more  or  less  an  unwel¬ 
come  member  of  the  world  family.  It  is  neverthe¬ 
less  true  that  the  latest  comer  into  the  family  of  na¬ 
tions  did  not  for  a  long  time  command  the  respect 
of  the  world.  This  lack  of  respect  was  partly  due 
to  the  character  of  the  American  population.  Along 
with  the  many  estimable  and  excellent  people  who 
had  come  to  British  North  America  inspired  by  the 
best  of  motives,  there  had  come  others  who  were 
not  regarded  favorably  by  the  governing  classes  of 
Europe.  Discontent  is  frequently  a  healthful  sign 
and  a  forerunner  of  progress,  but  it  makes  one  an 
uncomfortable  neighbor  in  a  satisfied  and  conserva¬ 
tive  community;  and  discontent  was  the  underly¬ 
ing  factor  in  the  migration  from  the  Old  World  to 
the  New.  In  any  composite  immigrant  population 
such  as  that  of  the  United  States  there  was  bound 
to  be  a  large  element  of  undesirables.  Among 
those  who  came  ‘‘for  conscience’s  sake”  were  the 
best  type  of  religious  protestants,  but  there  were 
also  religious  cranks  from  many  countries,  of  al¬ 
most  every  conceivable  sect  and  of  no  sect  at  all. 
Many  of  the  newcomers  were  poor.  It  was  com¬ 
mon,  too,  to  regard  colonies  as  inferior  places  of 
residence  to  which  objectionable  persons  might  be 
encouraged  to  go  and  where  the  average  of  the 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 


3 


population  was  lowered  by  the  influx  of  convicts 
and  thousands  of  slaves. 

‘‘The  great  number  of  emigrants  from  Europe’ * 
—  wrote  Thieriot,  Saxon  Commissioner  of  Com¬ 
merce  to  America,  from  Philadelphia  in  1784  — 
“has  filled  this  place  with  worthless  persons  to  such 
a  degree  that  scarcely  a  day  passes  without  theft, 
robbery,  or  even  assassination.”1  It  would  per¬ 
haps  be  too  much  to  say  that  the  people  of  the 
United  States  were  looked  upon  by  the  rest  of  the 
world  as  only  half  civilized,  but  certainly  they  were 
regarded  as  of  lower  social  standing  and  of  inferior 
quality,  and  many  of  them  were  known  to  be  rough, 
uncultured,  and  ignorant.  Great  Britain  and  Ger¬ 
many  maintained  American  missionary  societies, 
not,  as  might  perhaps  be  expected,  for  the  benefit 
of  the  Indian  or  negro,  but  for  the  poor,  benighted 
colonists  themselves;  and  Great  Britain  refused  to 
commission  a  minister  to  her  former  colonies  for 
nearly  ten  years  after  their  independence  had  been 
recognized. 

It  is  usually  thought  that  the  dregs  of  humilia¬ 
tion  have  been  reached  when  the  rights  of  foreigners 
are  not  considered  safe  in  a  particular  country,  so 

1  Quoted  by  W.  E.  Lingelbach,  History  Teacher's  Magazine, 
March,  1913. 


4  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


that  another  state  insists  upon  establishing  therein 
its  own  tribunal  for  the  trial  of  its  citizens  or  sub¬ 
jects.  Yet  that  is  what  the  French  insisted  upon 
in  the  United  States,  and  they  were  supposed  to  be 
especially  friendly.  They  had  had  their  own  ex¬ 
perience  in  America.  First  the  native  Indian  had 
appealed  to  their  imagination.  Then,  at  an  ap¬ 
propriate  moment,  they  seemed  to  see  in  the  Amer¬ 
icans  a  living  embodiment  of  the  philosophical  the¬ 
ories  of  the  time:  they  thought  that  they  had  at 
last  found  “the  natural  man”  of  Rousseau  and  Vol¬ 
taire;  they  believed  that  they  saw  the  social  con¬ 
tract  theory  being  worked  out  before  their  very 
eyes.  Nevertheless,  in  spite  of  this  interest  in 
Americans,  the  French  looked  upon  them  as  an  in¬ 
ferior  people  over  whom  they  would  have  liked  to 
exercise  a  sort  of  protectorate.  To  them  the  Amer¬ 
icans  seemed  to  lack  a  proper  knowledge  of  the 
amenities  of  life.  Commissioner  Thieriot,  describ¬ 
ing  the  administration  of  justice  in  the  new  re¬ 
public,  noticed  that:  “A  Frenchman,  with  the 
prejudices  of  his  country  and  accustomed  to  court 
sessions  in  which  the  officers  have  imposing  robes 
and  a  uniform  that  makes  it  impossible  to  recog¬ 
nize  them,  smiles  at  seeing  in  the  court  room 
men  dressed  in  street  clothes,  simple,  often  quite 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 


5 


common.  He  is  astonished  to  see  the  public  enter 
and  leave  the  court  room  freely,  those  who  prefer 
even  keeping  their  hats  on.”  Later  he  adds:  “It 
appears  that  the  court  of  France  wished  to  set  up  a 
jurisdiction  of  its  own  on  this  continent  for  all  mat¬ 
ters  involving  French  subjects.”  France  failed  in 
this;  but  at  the  very  time  that  peace  was  under  dis¬ 
cussion  Congress  authorized  Franklin  to  negotiate 
a  consular  convention,  ratified  a  few  years  later,  ac- 
cording  to  which  the  citizens  of  the  United  States 
and  the  subjects  of  the  French  King  in  the  country 
of  the  other  should  be  tried  by  their  respective  con¬ 
suls  or  vice-consuls.  Though  this  agreement  was 
made  reciprocal  in  its  terms  and  so  saved  appear¬ 
ances  for  the  honor  of  the  new  nation,  nevertheless 
in  submitting  it  to  Congress  John  Jay  clearly 
pointed  out  that  it  was  reciprocal  in  name  rather 
than  in  substance,  as  there  were  few  or  no  Ameri¬ 
cans  in  France  but  an  increasing  number  of  French¬ 
men  in  the  United  States. 

Such  was  the  status  of  the  new  republic  in  the 
family  of  nations  when  the  time  approached  for  the 
negotiation  of  a  treaty  of  peace  with  the  mother 
country.  The  war  really  ended  with  the  surrender  of 
Cornwallis  at  Yorktownin  1781.  Yet  even  then  the 
British  were  unwilling  to  concede  the  independence 


6  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


of  the  revolted  colonies.  This  refusal  of  recogni¬ 
tion  was  not  merely  a  matter  of  pride;  a  division 
and  a  consequent  weakening  of  the  empire  was  in¬ 
volved;  to  avoid  this  Great  Britain  seems  to  have 
been  willing  to  make  any  other  concessions  that 
were  necessary.  The  mother  country  sought  to 
avoid  disruption  at  all  costs.  But  the  time  had 
passed  when  any  such  adjustment  might  have  been 
possible.  The  Americans  now  flatly  refused  to 
treat  of  peace  upon  any  footing  except  that  of  in¬ 
dependent  equality.  The  British,  being  in  no  posi¬ 
tion  to  continue  the  struggle,  were  obliged  to  yield 
and  to  declare  in  the  first  article  of  the  treaty  of 
peace  that  “His  Britannic  Majesty  acknowledges 
the  said  United  States  .  .  .  to  be  free,  sovereign, 
and  independent  states/ ’ 

With  France  the  relationship  of  the  United 
States  was  clear  and  friendly  enough  at  the  time. 
The  American  War  of  Independence  had  been 
brought  to  a  successful  issue  with  the  aid  of  France. 
In  the  treaty  of  alliance  which  had  been  signed  in 
1778  it  had  been  agreed  that  neither  France  nor  the 
United  States  should,  without  the  consent  of  the 
other,  make  peace  with  Great  Britain.  More  than 
that,  in  1781,  partly  out  of  gratitude  but  largely 
as  a  result  of  clever  manipulation  of  factions  in 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 


7 


Congress  by  the  F r  ench  Minister  in  Philadelphia,  the 
Chevalier  de  la  Luzerne,  the  American  peace  com¬ 
missioners  had  been  instructed  “to  make  the  most 
candid  and  confidential  communications  upon  all 
subjects  to  the  ministers  of  our  generous  ally,  the 
King  of  France;  to  undertake  nothing  in  the  nego¬ 
tiations  for  peace  or  truce  without  their  knowledge 
and  concurrence;  and  ultimately  to  govern  your¬ 
selves  by  their  advice  and  opinion.”1  If  France 
had  been  actuated  only  by  unselfish  motives  in  sup¬ 
porting  the  colonies  in  their  revolt  against  Great 
Britain,  these  instructions  might  have  been  accept¬ 
able  and  even  advisable.  But  such  was  not  the 
case.  France  was  working  not  so  much  with  philan¬ 
thropic  purposes  or  for  sentimental  reasons  as  for 
the  restoration  to  her  former  position  of  supremacy 
in  Europe.  Revenge  upon  England  was  only  a 
part  of  a  larger  plan  of  national  aggrandizement. 

The  treaty  with  France  in  1778  had  declared 
that  war  should  be  continued  until  the  independ¬ 
ence  of  the  United  States  had  been  established,  and 
it  appeared  as  if  that  were  the  main  purpose  of  the 
alliance.  For  her  own  good  reasons  France  had 
dragged  Spain  into  the  struggle.  Spain,  of  course, 
fought  to  cripple  Great  Britain  and  not  to  help  the 

1  Secret  Journals  of  Congress,  June  15,  1781. 


8  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


United  States.  In  return  for  this  support  France 
was  pledged  to  assist  Spain  in  obtaining  certain  ad¬ 
ditions  to  her  territory.  In  so  far  as  these  addi¬ 
tions  related  to  North  America,  the  interests  of 
Spain  and  those  of  the  United  States  were  far  from 
being  identical;  in  fact,  they  were  frequently  in  di¬ 
rect  opposition.  Spain  was  already  in  possession 
of  Louisiana  and,  by  prompt  action  on  her  entry 
into  the  war  in  1780,  she  had  succeeded  in  getting 
control  of  eastern  Louisiana  and  of  practically  all 
the  Floridas  except  St.  Augustine.  To  consolidate 
these  holdings  and  round  out  her  American  empire, 
Spain  would  have  liked  to  obtain  the  title  to  all  the 
land  between  the  Alleghany  Mountains  and  the 
Mississippi.  Failing  this,  however,  she  seemed  to 
prefer  that  the  region  northwest  of  the  Ohio  River 
should  belong  to  the  British  rather  than  to  the 
United  States. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  was  fortunate  for 
the  United  States  that  the  American  Peace  Com¬ 
missioners  were  broad-minded  enough  to  appreciate 
the  situation  and  to  act  on  their  own  responsibility. 
Benjamin  Franklin,  although  he  was  not  the  first  to 
be  appointed,  was  generally  considered  to  be  the 
chief  of  the  Commission  by  reason  of  his  age,  ex¬ 
perience,  and  reputation.  Over  seventy-five  years 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 


9 


old,  he  was  more  universally  known  and  admired 
than  probably  any  man  of  his  time.  This  many- 
sided  American  —  printer,  almanac  maker,  writer, 
scientist,  and  philosopher  —  by  the  variety  of  his 
abilities  as  well  as  by  the  charm  of  his  manner 
seemed  to  have  found  his  real  mission  in  the  diplo¬ 
matic  field,  where  he  could  serve  his  country  and  at 
the  same  time,  with  credit  to  himself,  preach  his 
own  doctrines. 

When  Franklin  was  sent  to  Europe  at  the  out¬ 
break  of  the  Revolution,  it  was  as  if  destiny  had  in¬ 
tended  him  for  that  particular  task.  His  achieve¬ 
ments  had  already  attracted  attention;  in  his  fur 
cap  and  eccentric  dress  “he  fulfilled  admirably  the 
Parisian  ideal  of  the  forest  philosopher”;  and  with 
his  facility  in  conversation,  as  well  as  by  the  attrac¬ 
tiveness  of  his  personality,  he  won  both  young  and 
old.  But,  with  his  undoubted  zeal  for  liberty  and 
his  unquestioned  love  of  country,  Franklin  never 
departed  from  the  Quaker  principles  he  affected 
and  always  tried  to  avoid  a  fight.  In  these  ef¬ 
forts,  owing  to  his  shrewdness  and  his  willingness 
to  compromise,  he  was  generally  successful. 

John  Adams,  being  then  the  American  repre¬ 
sentative  at  The  Hague,  was  the  first  Commis¬ 
sioner  to  be  appointed.  Indeed,  when  he  was  first 


10  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


named,  in  1779,  he  was  to  be  sole  commissioner  to 
negotiate  peace;  and  it  was  the  influential  French 
Minister  to  the  United  States  who  was  responsible 
for  others  being  added  to  the  commission.  Adams 
was  a  sturdy  New  Englander  of  British  stock  and 
of  a  distinctly  English  type  —  medium  height,  a 
stout  figure,  and  a  ruddy  face.  No  one  questioned 
his  honesty,  his  straightforwardness,  or  his  lack  of 
tact.  Being  a  man  of  strong  mind,  of  wide  reading 
and  even  great  learning,  and  having  serene  confi¬ 
dence  in  the  purity  of  his  motives  as  well  as  in  the 
soundness  of  his  judgment,  Adams  was  little  in¬ 
clined  to  surrender  his  own  views,  and  was  ready 
to  carry  out  his  ideas  against  every  obstacle.  By 
nature  as  well  as  by  training  he  seems  to  have  been 
incapable  of  understanding  the  French;  he  was  sus¬ 
picious  of  them  and  he  disapproved  of  Franklin’s 
popularity  even  as  he  did  of  his  personality. 

Five  Commissioners  in  all  were  named,  but 
Thomas  Jefferson  and  Henry  Laurens  did  not  take 
part  in  the  negotiations,  so  that  the  only  other  ac¬ 
tive  member  was  John  Jay,  then  thirty-seven  years 
old  and  already  a  man  of  prominence  in  his  own 
country.  Of  French  Huguenot  stock  and  type,  he 
was  tall  and  slender,  with  somewhat  of  a  schol¬ 
ar’s  stoop,  and  was  usually  dressed  in  black.  His 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE  11 

manners  were  gentle  and  unassuming,  but  his  face, 
with  its  penetrating  black  eyes,  its  aquiline  nose  and 
pointed  chin,  revealed  a  proud  and  sensitive  dis¬ 
position.  He  had  been  sent  to  the  court  of  Spain 
in  1780,  and  there  he  had  learned  enough  to  arouse 
his  suspicions,  if  nothing  more,  of  Spain’s  designs 
as  well  as  of  the  French  intention  to  support  them. 

In  the  spring  of  1782  Adams  felt  obliged  to  re¬ 
main  at  The  Hague  in  order  to  complete  the  nego¬ 
tiations  already  successfully  begun  for  a  commer¬ 
cial  treaty  with  the  Netherlands.  Franklin,  thus 
the  only  Commissioner  on  the  ground  in  Paris,  be¬ 
gan  informal  negotiations  alone  but  sent  an  urgent 
call  to  Jay  in  Spain,  who  was  convinced  of  the 
fruitlessness  of  his  mission  there  and  promptly  re¬ 
sponded.  Jay’s  experience  in  Spain  and  his  knowl¬ 
edge  of  Spanish  hopes  had  led  him  to  believe  that 
the  French  were  not  especially  concerned  about 
American  interests  but  were  in  fact  willing  to  sacri¬ 
fice  them  if  necessary  to  placate  Spain.  He  ac¬ 
cordingly  insisted  that  the  American  Commis¬ 
sioners  should  disregard  their  instructions  and, 
without  the  knowledge  of  France,  should  deal  di¬ 
rectly  with  Great  Britain.  In  this  contention  he 
was  supported  by  Adams  when  he  arrived,  but  it 
was  hard  to  persuade  Franklin  to  accept  this  point 


12  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


of  view,  for  he  was  unwilling  to  believe  anything 
so  unworthy  of  his  admiring  and  admired  French. 
Nevertheless,  with  his  cautious  shrewdness,  he 
finally  yielded  so  far  as  to  agree  to  see  what  might 
come  out  of  direct  negotiations. 

The  rest  was  relatively  easy.  Of  course  there 
were  difficulties  and  such  sharp  differences  of  opin¬ 
ion  that,  even  after  long  negotiation,  some  matters 
had  to  be  compromised.  Some  problems,  too, 
were  found  insoluble  and  were  finally  left  without  a 
settlement.  But  such  difficulties  as  did  exist  were 
slight  in  comparison  with  the  previous  hopeless¬ 
ness  of  reconciling  American  and  Spanish  ambi¬ 
tions,  especially  when  the  latter  were  supported  by 
France.  On  the  one  hand,  the  Americans  were  the 
proteges  of  the  French  and  were  expected  to  give 
way  before  the  claims  of  their  patron’s  friends  to  an 
extent  which  threatened  to  limit  seriously  their 
growth  and  development.  On  the  other  hand, 
they  were  the  younger  sons  of  England,  uncivilized 
by  their  wilderness  life,  ungrateful  and  rebellious, 
but  still  to  be  treated  by  England  as  children  of  the 
blood.  In  the  all-important  question  of  extent  of 
territory,  where  Spain  and  France  would  have 
limited  the  United  States  to  the  east  of  the  Alle¬ 
ghany  Mountains,  Great  Britain  was  persuaded 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 


13 


without  great  difficulty,  having  once  conceded  in¬ 
dependence  to  the  United  States,  to  yield  the 
boundaries  which  she  herself  had  formerly  claimed 
—  from  the  Atlantic  Ocean  on  the  east  to  the 
Mississippi  River  on  the  west,  and  from  Canada  on 
the  north  to  the  southern  boundary  of  Georgia. 
Unfortunately  the  northern  line,  through  ignorance 
and  carelessness  rather  than  through  malice,  was 
left  uncertain  at  various  points  and  became  the 
subject  of  almost  continuous  controversy  until  the 
last  bit  of  it  was  settled  in  1911. 1 

The  fisheries  of  the  North  Atlantic,  for  which 
Newfoundland  served  as  the  chief  entrepot,  had 
been  one  of  the  great  assets  of  North  America  from 
the  time  of  its  discovery.  They  had  been  one  of 
the  chief  prizes  at  stake  in  the  struggle  between  the 
French  and  the  British  for  the  possession  of  the  con¬ 
tinent,  and  they  had  been  of  so  much  value  that  a 
British  statute  of  1775  which  cut  off  the  New  Eng¬ 
land  fisheries  was  regarded,  even  after  the  “intoler¬ 
able  acts”  of  the  previous  year,  as  the  height  of 
punishment  for  New  England.  Many  Englishmen 
would  have  been  glad  to  see  the  Americans  ex¬ 
cluded  from  these  fisheries,  but  John  Adams,  when 

1  See  Lord  Bryce’s  Introduction  (p.  xxiv)  to  W.  A.  Dunning, 
The  British  Empire  and  the  United  States  (1914). 


14  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


he  arrived  from  The  Hague,  displayed  an  apprecia¬ 
tion  of  New  England  interests  and  the  quality  of 
his  temper  as  well  by  flatly  refusing  to  agree  to  any 
treaty  which  did  not  allow  full  fishing  privileges. 
The  British  accordingly  yielded  and  the  Americans 
were  granted  fishing  rights  as  “heretofore”  en¬ 
joyed.  The  right  of  navigation  of  the  Mississippi 
River,  it  was  declared  in  the  treaty,  should  “forever 
remain  free  and  open”  to  both  parties;  but  here 
Great  Britain  was  simply  passing  on  to  the  United 
States  a  formal  right  which  she  had  received  from 
France  and  was  retaining  for  herself  a  similar  right 
which  might  sometime  prove  of  use,  for  as  long  as 
Spain  held  both  banks  at  the  mouth  of  the  Missis¬ 
sippi  River,  the  right  was  of  little  practical  value. 

Two  subjects  involving  the  greatest  difficulty  of 
arrangement  were  the  compensation  of  the  Loyal¬ 
ists  and  the  settlement  of  commercial  indebtedness. 
The  latter  was  really  a  question  of  the  payment  of 
British  creditors  by  American  debtors,  for  there 
was  little  on  the  other  side  of  the  balance  sheet,  and 
it  seems  as  if  the  frugal  Franklin  would  have  pre¬ 
ferred  to  make  no  concessions  and  would  have  al¬ 
lowed  creditors  to  take  their  own  chances  of  get¬ 
ting  paid.  But  the  matter  appeared  to  Adams 
in  a  different  light  —  perhaps  his  New  England 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 


15 


conscience  was  aroused  —  and  in  this  point  of  view 
he  was  supported  by  Jay.  It  was  therefore  finally 
agreed  “that  creditors  on  either  side  shall  meet 
with  no  lawful  impediment  to  the  recovery  of  the 
full  value  in  sterling  money,  of  all  bona  fide  debts 
heretofore  contracted.”  However  just  this  pro¬ 
vision  may  have  been,  its  incorporation  in  the 
terms  of  the  treaty  was  a  mistake  on  the  part  of 
the  Commissioners,  because  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  had  no  power  to  give  effect  to  such 
an  arrangement,  so  that  the  provision  had  no  more 
value  than  an  emphatic  expression  of  opinion.  Ac¬ 
cordingly,  when  some  of  the  States  later  disregarded 
this  part  of  the  treaty,  the  British  had  an  excuse  for 
refusing  to  carry  out  certain  of  their  own  obligations. 

The  historian  of  the  Virginia  Federal  Conven¬ 
tion  of  1788,  H.  B.  Grigsby,  relates  an  amusing 
incident  growing  out  of  the  controversy  over  the 
payment  of  debts  to  creditors  in  England: 

A  Scotchman,  John  Warden,  a  prominent  lawyer  and 
good  classical  scholar,  but  suspected  rightly  of  Tory 
leanings  during  the  Revolution,  learning  of  the  large 
minority  against  the  repeal  of  laws  in  conflict  with  the 
treaty  of  1783  ( i .  e .,  especially  the  laws  as  to  the  collec¬ 
tion  of  debts  by  foreigners)  caustically  remarked  that 
some  of  the  members  of  the  House  had  voted  against 
paying  for  the  coats  on  their  backs.  The  story  goes 


16  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


that  he  was  summoned  before  the  House  in  full  session, 
and  was  compelled  to  beg  their  pardon  on  his  knees; 
but  as  he  rose,  pretending  to  brush  the  dust  from  his 
knees,  he  pointed  to  the  House  and  said  audibly,  with 
evident  double  meaning,  “Upon  my  word,  a  dommed 
dirty  house  it  is  indeed.”  The  Journal  of  the  House, 
however,  shows  that  the  honor  of  the  delegates  was 
satisfied  by  a  written  assurance  from  Mr.  Warden  that 
he  meant  in  no  way  to  affront  the  dignity  of  the  House 
or  to  insult  any  of  its  members. 

The  other  question,  that  of  compensating  the 
Loyalists  for  the  loss  of  their  property,  was  not  so 
simple  a  matter,  for  the  whole  story  of  the  Revolu¬ 
tion  was  involved.  There  is  a  tendency  among 
many  scholars  of  the  present  day  to  regard  the  pol¬ 
icy  of  the  British  toward  their  North  American 
colonies  as  possibly  unwise  and  blundering  but  as 
being  entirely  in  accordance  with  the  legal  and 
constitutional  rights  of  the  mother  country,  and  to 
believe  that  the  Americans,  while  they  may  have 
been  practically  and  therefore  morally  justified 
in  asserting  their  independence,  were  still  techni¬ 
cally  and  legally  in  the  wrong.  It  is  immaterial 
whether  or  not  that  point  of  view  is  accepted,  for 
its  mere  recognition  is  sufficient  to  explain  the 
existence  of  a  large  number  of  Americans  who  were 
steadfast  in  their  support  of  the  British  side  of  the 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 


17 


controversy.  Indeed,  it  has  been  estimated  that  as 
large  a  proportion  as  one-third  of  the  population 
remained  loyal  to  the  Crown.  Numbers  must  re¬ 
main  more  or  less  uncertain,  but  probably  the  ma¬ 
jority  of  the  people  in  the  United  States,  whatever 
their  feelings  may  have  been,  tried  to  remain  neu¬ 
tral  or  at  least  to  appear  so;  and  it  is  undoubtedly 
true  that  the  Revolution  was  accomplished  by  an 
aggressive  minority  and  that  perhaps  as  great  a 
number  were  actively  loyal  to  Great  Britain. 

These  Loyalists  comprised  at  least  two  groups. 
One  of  these  was  a  wealthy,  property-owning  class, 
representing  the  best  social  element  in  the  colonies, 
extremely  conservative,  believing  in  privilege  and 
fearing  the  rise  of  democracy.  The  other  was  com¬ 
posed  of  the  royal  office-holders,  which  included 
some  of  the  better  families,  but  was  more  largely 
made  up  of  the  lower  class  of  political  and  social 
hangers-on,  who  had  been  rewarded  with  these  posi¬ 
tions  for  political  debts  incurred  in  England.  The 
opposition  of  both  groups  to  the  Revolution  was 
inevitable  and  easily  to  be  understood,  but  it  was 
also  natural  that  the  Revolutionists  should  incline 
to  hold  the  Loyalists,  without  distinction,  largely 
responsible  for  British  pre-Revolutionary  policy, 
asserting  that  they  misinformed  the  Government 


18  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


as  to  conditions  and  sentiment  in  America,  partly 
through  stupidity  and  partly  through  selfish  in¬ 
terest.  It  was  therefore  perfectly  comprehensible 
that  the  feeling  should  be  bitter  against  them  in  the 
United  States,  especially  as  they  had  given  efficient 
aid  to  the  British  during  the  war.  In  various 
States  they  were  subjected  to  personal  violence  at 
the  hands  of  indignant  “patriots,”  many  being 
forced  to  flee  from  their  homes,  while  their  property 
was  destroyed  or  confiscated,  and  frequently  these 
acts  were  legalized  by  statute. 

The  historian  of  the  Loyalists  of  Massachusetts, 
James  H.  Stark,  must  not  be  expected  to  under¬ 
state  the  case,  but  when  he  is  describing,  especially 
in  New  England,  the  reign  of  terror  which  was 
established  to  suppress  these  people,  he  writes: 


Loyalists  were  tarred  and  feathered  and  carried  on 
rails,  gagged  and  bound  for  days  at  a  time;  stoned, 
fastened  in  a  room  with  a  fire  and  the  chimney  stopped 
on  top;  advertised  as  public  enemies,  so  that  they 
would  be  cut  off  from  all  dealings  with  their  neighbors; 
they  had  bullets  shot  into  their  bedrooms,  their  horses 
poisoned  or  mutilated;  money  or  valuable  plate  ex¬ 
torted  from  them  to  save  them  from  violence,  and  on 
pretence  of  taking  security  for  their  good  behavior; 
their  houses  and  ships  burned;  they  were  compelled  to 
pay  the  guards  who  watched  them  in  their  houses,  and 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 


19 


when  carted  about  for  the  mob  to  stare  at  and  abuse, 
they  were  compelled  to  pay  something  at  every  town. 

There  is  little  doubt  also  that  the  confiscation  of 
property  and  the  expulsion  of  the  owners  from  the 
community  were  helped  on  by  people  who  were 
debtors  to  the  Loyalists  and  in  this  way  saw  a 
chance  of  escaping  from  the  payment  of  their 
rightful  obligations.  The 4 ‘  Act  for  confiscating  the 
estates  of  certain  persons  commonly  called  absen¬ 
tees  ”  may  have  been  a  measure  of  self-defense  for 
the  State  but  it  was  passed  by  the  votes  of  those 
who  undoubtedly  profited  by  its  provisions. 

Those  who  had  stood  loyally  by  the  Crown  must 
in  turn  be  looked  out  for  by  the  British  Govern¬ 
ment,  especially  when  the  claims  of  justice  were  re¬ 
inforced  by  the  important  consideration  that  many 
of  those  with  property  and  financial  interests  in 
America  were  relatives  of  influential  persons  in 
England.  The  immediate  necessity  during  the  war 
had  been  partially  met  by  assisting  thousands  to 
go  to  Canada  —  where  their  descendants  today 
form  an  important  element  in  the  population  and 
are  proud  of  being  United  Empire  Loyalists  — 
while  pensions  and  gifts  were  supplied  to  others. 
Now  that  the  war  was  over  the  British  were  deter¬ 
mined  that  Americans  should  make  good  to  the 


20  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


Loyalists  for  all  that  they  had  suffered,  and  His 
Majesty’s  Commissioners  were  hopeful  at  least  of 
obtaining  a  proviso  similar  to  the  one  relating  to 
the  collection  of  debts.  John  Adams,  however,  ex¬ 
pressed  the  prevailing  American  idea  when  he  said 
that  “  paying  debts  and  compensating  Tories”  were 
two  very  different  things,  and  Jay  asserted  that 
there  were  certain  of  these  refugees  whom  Ameri¬ 
cans  never  would  forgive. 

But  this  was  the  one  thing  needed  to  complete 
the  negotiations  for  peace,  and  the  British  argu¬ 
ments  on  the  injustice  and  irregularity  of  the  treat¬ 
ment  accorded  to  the  Loyalists  were  so  strong  that 
the  American  Commissioners  were  finally  driven  to 
the  excuse  that  the  Government  of  the  Confedera¬ 
tion  had  no  power  over  the  individual  States  by 
whom  the  necessary  action  must  be  taken.  Final¬ 
ly,  in  a  spirit  of  mutual  concession  at  the  end  of 
the  negotiations,  the  Americans  agreed  that  Con¬ 
gress  should  “recommend  to  the  legislatures  of  the 
respective  states  to  provide  for  the  restitution”  of 
properties  which  had  been  confiscated  “belonging 
to  real  British  subjects,”  and  “that  persons  of  any 
other  description”  might  return  to  the  United  States 
for  a  period  of  twelve  months  and  be  “unmolested 
in  their  endeavours  to  obtain  the  restitution.” 


THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE 


21 


With  this  show  of  yielding  on  the  part  of  the 
American  Commissioners  it  was  possible  to  con¬ 
clude  the  terms  of  peace,  and  the  preliminary  treaty 
was  drawn  accordingly  and  agreed  to  on  November 
30,  1782.  Franklin  had  been  of  such  great  service 
during  all  the  negotiations,  smoothing  down  ruffled 
feelings  by  his  suavity  and  tact  and  presenting  dif¬ 
ficult  subjects  in  a  way  that  made  action  possible, 
that  to  him  was  accorded  the  unpleasant  task  of 
communicating  what  had  been  accomplished  to 
1  Vergennes,  the  French  Minister,  and  of  requesting 
at  the  same  time  “a  fresh  loan  of  twenty  million 
francs.”  Franklin,  of  course,  presented  his  case 
with  much  “  delicacy  and  kindliness  of  manner” 
and  with  a  fair  degree  of  success.  “Vergennes 
thought  that  the  signing  of  the  articles  was  prema¬ 
ture,  but  he  made  no  inconvenient  remonstrances, 
and  procured  six  millions  of  the  twenty.”1  On 
September  3,  1783,  the  definite  treaty  of  peace  was 
signed  and  in  due  time  it  was  ratified  by  the  British 
Parliament  as  well  as  by  the  American  Congress. 
The  new  state,  duly  accredited,  thus  took  its  place 
in  the  family  of  nations ;  but  it  was  a  very  humble 
place  that  was  first  assigned  to  the  United  States 
of  America. 

1  Channing,  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  iii,  p.  368. 


CHAPTER  II 


TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY 

Though  the  word  revolution  implies  a  violent  break 
with  the  past,  there  was  nothing  in  the  Revolution 
that  transformed  the  essential  character  or  the  char¬ 
acteristics  of  the  American  people.  The  Revolution 
severed  the  ties  which  bound  the  colonies  to  Great 
Britain;  it  created  some  new  activities;  some  sol¬ 
diers  were  diverted  from  their  former  trades  and  oc¬ 
cupation;  but,  as  the  proportion  of  the  population 
engaged  in  the  war  was  relatively  small  and  the  area 
of  country  affected  for  any  length  of  time  was  com¬ 
paratively  slight,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  in  general  the 
mass  of  the  people  remained  about  the  same  after 
the  war  as  before.  The  professional  man  wTas  found 
in  his  same  calling;  the  artisan  returned  to  his  tools, 1 
if  he  had  ever  laid  them  down;  the  shopkeeper  re¬ 
sumed  his  business,  if  it  had  been  interrupted ;  the 
merchant  went  back  to  his  trading;  and  the  farmer 

before  the  Revolution  remained  a  farmer  afterward. 

22 


TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY 


23 


The  country  as  a  whole  was  in  relatively  good 
condition  and  the  people  were  reasonably  prosper¬ 
ous;  at  least,  there  was  no  general  distress  or  pov¬ 
erty.  Suffering  had  existed  in  the  regions  ravaged 
by  war,  but  no  section  had  suffered  unduly  or  had 
had  to  bear  the  burden  of  war  during  the  entire  pe¬ 
riod  of  fighting.  American  products  had  been  in 
demand,  especially  in  the  West  India  Islands,  and 
an  illicit  trade  with  the  enemy  had  sprung  up,  so 
that  even  during  the  war  shippers  were  able  to  dis¬ 
pose  of  their  commodites  at  good  prices.  The 
Americans  are  commonly  said  to  have  been  an  agri¬ 
cultural  people,  but  it  would  be  more  correct  to  say 
that  the  great  majority  of  the  people  were  depend¬ 
ent  upon  extractive  industries,  which  would  include 
lumbering,  fishing,  and  even  the  fur  trade,  as  well 
as  the  ordinary  agricultural  pursuits.  Save  for  a 
few  industries,  of  which  shipbuilding  was  one  of  the 
most  important,  there  was  relatively  little  manu¬ 
facturing  apart  from  the  household  crafts.  These 
household  industries  had  increased  during  the  war, 
but  as  it  was  with  the  individual  so  it  was  with  the 
whole  country;  the  general  course  of  industrial  ac¬ 
tivity  was  much  the  same  as  it  had  been  before 
the  war. 

A  fundamental  fact  is  to  be  observed  in  the 


24  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


economy  of  the  young  nation :  the  people  were  rais¬ 
ing  far  more  tobacco  and  grain  and  were  extracting 
far  more  of  other  products  than  they  could  possibly 
use  themselves;  for  the  surplus  they  must  find  mar¬ 
kets.  They  had,  as  well,  to  rely  upon  the  outside 
world  for  a  great  part  of  their  manufactured  goods, 
especially  for  those  of  the  higher  grade.  In  other 
words,  from  the  economic  point  of  view,  the  United 
States  remained  in  the  former  colonial  stage  of  in¬ 
dustrial  dependence,  which  was  aggravated  rather 
than  alleviated  by  the  separation  from  Great  Brit¬ 
ain.  During  the  colonial  period,  Americans  had 
carried  on  a  large  amount  of  this  external  trade  by 
means  of  their  own  vessels.  The  British  Naviga¬ 
tion  Acts  required  the  transportation  of  goods  in 
British  vessels,  manned  by  crews  of  British  sailors, 
and  specified  certain  commodities  which  could  be 
shipped  to  Great  Britain  only.  They  also  required 
that  much  of  the  European  trade  should  pass  by 
way  of  England.  But  colonial  vessels  and  colonial 
sailors  came  under  the  designation  of  “British,” 
and  no  small  part  of  the  prosperity  of  New  England, 
and  of  the  middle  colonies  as  well,  had  been  due  to 
the  carrying  trade.  It  would  seem  therefore  as  if  a 
primary  need  of  the  American  people  immediately 
after  the  Revolution  was  to  get  access  to  their  old 


TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY 


25 


markets  and  to  carry  the  goods  as  much  as  possible 
in  their  own  vessels. 

In  some  directions  they  were  successful.  One  of 
the  products  in  greatest  demand  was  fish..  The 
fishing  industry  had  been  almost  annihilated  by 
the  war,  but  with  the  establishment  of  peace  the 
New  England  fisheries  began  to  recover.  They 
were  in  competition  with  the  fishermen  of  France 
and  England  who  were  aided  by  large  bounties,  yet 
the  superior  geographical  advantages  which  the 
American  fishermen  possessed  enabled  them  to 
maintain  and  expand  their  business,  and  the  re¬ 
habilitation  of  the  fishing  fleet  was  an  important 
feature  of  their  programme.  In  other  directions 
they  were  not  so  successful.  The  British  still  be¬ 
lieved  in  their  colonial  system  and  applied  its  prin¬ 
ciples  without  regard  to  the  interests  of  the  United 
States.  Such  American  products  as  they  wanted 
they  allowed  to  be  carried  to  British  markets,  but 
in  British  vessels.  Certain  commodities,  the  pro-  , 
on  of  which  they  wished  to  encourage  within 
own  dominions,  they  added  to  the  prohibited 
Americans  cried  out  indignantly  that  this  was 
tempt  on  the  part  of  the  British  to  punish 
former  colonies  for  their  temerity  in  revolting. 
British  Government  may  well  have  derived 


26  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

some  satisfaction  from  the  fact  that  certain  restric¬ 
tions  bore  heavily  upon  New  England,  as  John 
Adams  complained ;  but  it  would  seem  to  be  much 
nearer  the  truth  to  say  that  in  a  truly  characteris¬ 
tic  way  the  British  were  phlegmatically  attending 
to  their  own  interests  and  calmly  ignoring  the 
United  States,  and  that  there  was  little  malice  in 
their  policy. 

European  nations  had  regarded  American  trade 
as  a  profitable  field  of  enterprise  and  as  probably 
responsible  for  much  of  Great  Britain’s  prosperity. 
It  was  therefore  a  relatively  easy  matter  for  the 
United  States  to  enter  into  commercial  treaties 
with  foreign  countries.  These  treaties,  however, 
were  not  fruitful  of  any  great  result;  for, 44  with  un¬ 
important  exceptions,  they  left  still  in  force  the 
high  import  duties  and  prohibitions  that  marked 
the  European  tariffs  of  the  time,  as  well  as  many 
features  of  the  old  colonial  system.  They  were  de¬ 
signed  to  legalize  commerce  rather  than  to  encour¬ 
age  it.” 1  Still,  for  a  year  or  more  after  the  war  the 
demand  for  American  products  was  great  enough 
to  satisfy  almost  everybody.  But  in  1784  France 
and  Spain  closed  their  colonial  ports  and  thus  ex¬ 
cluded  the  shipping  of  the  United  States.  This 

1  Clive  Day,  Encyclopedia  of  American  Government,  vol.  i,  p.  340. 


TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY 


27 


proved  to  be  so  disastrous  for  their  colonies  that 
the  French  Government  soon  was  forced  to  relax 
its  restrictions.  The  British  also  made  some  con¬ 
cessions,  and  where  their  orders  were  not  modified 
they  were  evaded.  And  so,  in  the  course  of  a  few 
years,  the  West  India  trade  recovered. 

More  astonishing  to  the  men  of  that  time  than 
it  is  to  us  was  the  fact  that  American  foreign 
trade  fell  under  British  commercial  control  again. 
Whether  it  was  that  British  merchants  were  ac¬ 
customed  to  American  ways  of  doing  things  and 
knew  American  business  conditions ;  whether  other 
countries  found  the  commerce  not  as  profitable  as 
they  had  expected,  as  certainly  was  the  case  with 
F ranee ;  whether  ‘ 4  American  merchants  and  sea  cap¬ 
tains  found  themselves  under  disadvantages  due 
to  the  absence  of  treaty  protection  which  they  had 
enjoyed  as  English  subjects’’;1  or  whether  it  was 
the  necessity  of  trading  on  British  capital  —  what¬ 
ever  the  cause  may  have  been  —  within  a  com¬ 
paratively  few  years  a  large  part  of  American  trade 
was  in  British  hands  as  it  had  been  before  the 
Revolution.  American  trade  with  Europe  was  car¬ 
ried  on  through  English  merchants  very  much  as 

the  Navigation  Acts  had  prescribed. 

I 

1  C.  R.  Fish,  American  Diplomacy,  pp.  56-57. 


28  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

From  the  very  first  settlement  of  the  Ameri¬ 
can  continent  the  colonists  had  exhibited  one  of 
the  earliest  and  most  lasting  characteristics  of  the 
American  people  —  adaptability.  The  Americans 
now  proceeded  to  manifest  that  trait  anew,  not 
only  by  adjusting  themselves  to  renewed  com¬ 
mercial  dependence  upon  Great  Britain,  but  by 
seeking  new  avenues  of  trade.  A  striking  illus¬ 
tration  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  development  of 
trade  with  the  Far  East.  Captain  Cook’s  voyage 
around  the  world  (1768-1771),  an  account  of  which 
was  first  published  in  London  in  1773,  attracted  a 
great  deal  of  attention  in  America;  an  edition  of  the 
New  Voyage  was  issued  in  New  York  in  1774.  No 
sooner  was  the  Revolution  over  than  there  began 
that  romantic  trade  with  China  and  the  northwest 
coast  of  America,  which  made  the  fortunes  of  some 
families  of  Salem  and  Boston  and  Philadelphia. 
This  commerce  added  to  the  prosperity  of  the 
country,  but  above  all  it  stimulated  the  imagi¬ 
nation  of  Americans.  In  the  same  way  another 
outlet  was  found  in  trade  with  Russia  by  way  of 
the  Baltic. 

The  foreign  trade  of  the  United  States  after  the 
Revolution  thus  passed  through  certain  well- 
marked  phases.  First  there  was  a  short  period  of 


TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY 


29 


prosperity,  owing  to  an  unusual  demand  for  Amer¬ 
ican  products;  this  was  followed  by  a  longer  period 
of  depression;  and  then  came  a  gradual  recovery 
through  acceptance  of  the  new  conditions  and 
adjustment  to  them. 

A  similar  cycle  may  be  traced  in  the  domestic  or 
internal  trade.  In  early  days  intercolonial  com¬ 
merce  had  been  carried  on  mostly  by  water,  and 
when  war  interfered  commerce  almost  ceased  for 
want  of  roads.  The  loss  of  ocean  highways,  how¬ 
ever,  stimulated  road  building  and  led  to  what 
might  be  regarded  as  the  first  “  good-roads  move¬ 
ment  ”  of  the  new  nation,  except  that  to  our  eyes  it 
would  be  a  misuse  of  the  word  to  call  any  of  those 
roads  good.  But  anything  which  would  improve 
the  means  of  transportation  took  on  a  patriotic 
tinge,  and  the  building  of  roads  and  the  cutting  of 
canals  were  agitated  until  turnpike  and  canal  com¬ 
panies  became  a  favorite  form  of  investment;  and 
in  a  few  years  the  interstate  land  trade  had  grown 
to  considerable  importance.  But  in  the  meantime, 
water  transportation  was  the  main  reliance,  and 
with  the  end  of  the  war  the  coastwise  trade  had 
been  promptly  resumed.  For  a  time  it  prospered; 
but  the  States,  affected  by  the  general  economic 
conditions  and  by  jealousy,  tried  to  interfere  with 


/ 


30  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

and  divert  the  trade  of  others  to  their  own  advan¬ 
tage.  This  was  done  by  imposing  fees  and  charges 
and  duties,  not  merely  upon  goods  and  vessels 
from  abroad  but  upon  those  of  their  fellow  States. 
James  Madison  described  the  situation  in  the 
words  so  often  quoted :  “  Some  of  the  States,  .  .  . 
having  no  convenient  ports  for  foreign  commerce, 
were  subject  to  be  taxed  by  their  neighbors,  thro 
whose  ports,  their  commerce  was  carryed  on.  New 
Jersey,  placed  between  Phila.  &  N.  York,  was  lik¬ 
ened  to  a  Cask  tapped  at  both  ends :  and  N.  Caro¬ 
lina  between  Virga.  &  S.  Carolina  to  a  patient 
bleeding  at  both  Arms.” 1 

The  business  depression  which  very  naturally 
followed  the  short  revival  of  trade  was  so  serious 
in  its  financial  consequences  that  it  has  even  been 
referred  to  as  the  “Panic  of  1785.”  The  United 
States  afforded  a  good  market  for  imported  articles 
in  1783  and  1784,  all  the  better  because  of  the  sup¬ 
ply  of  gold  and  silver  which  had  been  sent  into  the 
country  by  England  and  France  to  maintain  their 
armies  and  fleets  and  which  had  remained  in  the 
United  States.  But  this  influx  of  imported  goods 
was  one  of  the  chief  factors  in  causing  de¬ 
pression  of  1785,  as  it  brought  ruin  to  many  of 

1  Records  of  the  Federal  Convention,  vol.  iii,  p.  542. 


TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY 


31 


those  domestic  industries  which  had  sprung  up 
in  the  days  of  non-intercourse  or  which  had  been 
stimulated  by  the  artificial  protection  of  the  war. 

To  make  matters  worse,  the  currency  was  in  a 
confused  condition.  “In  1784  the  entire  coin  of 
the  land,  except  coppers,  was  the  product  of  for¬ 
eign  mints.  English  guineas,  crowns,  shillings  and 
pence  were  still  paid  over  the  counters  of  shops  and 
taverns,  and  with  them  were  mingled  many  French 
and  Spanish  and  some  German  coins.  .  .  .  The 
value  of  the  gold  pieces  expressed  in  dollars  was 
pretty  much  the  same  the  country  over.  But  the 
dollar  and  the  silver  pieces  regarded  as  fractions  of 
a  dollar  had  no  less  than  five  different  values.”1 
The  importation  of  foreign  goods  was  fast  draining 
the  hard  money  out  of  the  country.  In  an  effort 
to  relieve  the  situation  but  with  the  result  of  mak¬ 
ing  it  much  worse,  several  of  the  States  began  to 
issue  paper  money;  and  this  was  in  addition  to 
the  enormous  quantities  of  paper  which  had  been 
printed  during  the  Revolution  and  which  was  now 
worth  but  a  small  fraction  of  its  face  value. 

The  expanding  currency  and  consequent  depre¬ 
ciation  m  the  value  of  money  had  immediately 

1  McMaster,  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i, 
pp.  190-191. 


32  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


resulted  in  a  corresponding  rise  of  prices,  which  for 
a  while  the  States  attempted  to  control.  But  in 
1778  Congress  threw  up  its  hands  in  despair  and 
voted  that  “all  limitations  of  prices  of  gold  and  sil¬ 
ver  be  taken  off,”  although  the  States  for  some 
time  longer  continued  to  endeavor  to  regulate 
prices  by  legislation . 1  The  fluctuating  value  of  the 
currency  increased  the  opportunities  for  specula¬ 
tion  which  war  conditions  invariably  offer,  and 
“immense  fortunes  were  suddenly  accumulated.” 
A  new  financial  group  rose  into  prominence  com¬ 
posed  largely  of  those  who  were  not  accustomed 
to  the  use  of  money  and  who  were  consequently 
inclined  to  spend  it  recklessly  and  extravagantly. 

Many  contemporaries  comment  upon  these 
things,  of  whom  Brissot  de  Warville  may  be  taken 
as  an  example,  although  he  did  not  visit  the  United 
States  until  1788: 

The  inhabitants  .  .  .  prefer  the  splendor  of  wealth 
and  the  show  of  enjoyment  to  the  simplicity  of  man¬ 
ners  and  the  pure  pleasures  which  result  from  it.  If 
there  is  a  town  on  the  American  continent  where  the 
English  luxury  displays  its  follies,  it  is  New  York. 
You  will  find  here  the  English  fashions:  in  the  dress  of 
the  women  you  will  see  the  most  brilliant  silks,  gauzes, 

1  W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  The  American  Revolution ,  New  York,  1898, 
pp.  288-294. 


TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY 


33 


hats,  and  borrowed  hair;  equipages  are  rare,  but  they 
are  elegant;  the  men  have  more  simplicity  in  their 
dress;  they  disdain  gewgaws,  but  they  take  their  re¬ 
venge  in  the  luxury  of  the  table;  luxury  forms  already 
a  class  of  men  very  dangerous  to  society;  I  mean  bache¬ 
lors;  the  expense  of  women  causes  matrimony  to  be 
dreaded  by  men.  Tea  forms,  as  in  England,  the  basis 
of  parties  of  pleasure;  many  things  are  dearer  here  than 
in  France;  a  hairdresser  asks  twenty  shilling  a  month; 
washing  costs  four  shillings  a  dozen. 1 

An  American  writer  of  a  later  date,  looking  back 
upon  his  earlier  years,  was  impressed  by  this  same 
extravagance,  and  his  testimony  may  well  be  used 
to  strengthen  the  impression  which  it  is  the  purpose 
of  the  present  narrative  to  convey : 

The  French  and  British  armies  circulated  immense  sums 
of  money  in  gold  and  silver  coin,  which  had  the  effect 
of  driving  out  of  circulation  the  wretched  paper  cur¬ 
rency  which  had  till  then  prevailed.  Immense  quan¬ 
tities  of  British  and  French  goods  were  soon  imported : 
our  people  imbibed  a  taste  for  foreign  fashions  and  lux¬ 
ury;  and  in  the  course  of  two  or  three  years,  from  the 
close  of  the  war,  such  an  entire  change  had  taken  place 
in  the  habits  and  manners  of  our  inhabitants,  that  it 
almost  appeared  as  if  we  had  suddenly  become  a  differ¬ 
ent  nation.  The  staid  and  sober  habits  of  our  ances¬ 
tors,  with  their  plain  home-manufactured  clothing, 

1  Quoted  by  Henry  Tuckerman,  America  and  her  Commentators , 
1864. 


3 


34  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


were  suddenly  laid  aside,  and  European  goods  of  fine 
quality  adopted  in  their  stead.  Fine  ruffles,  powdered 
heads,  silks  and  scarlets,  decorated  the  men;  while  the 
most  costly  silks,  satins,  chintzes,  calicoes,  muslins, 
etc.,  etc.,  decorated  our  females.  Nor  was  their  diet 
less  expensive;  for  superb  plate,  foreign  spirits,  wines, 
etc.,  etc.,  sparkled  on  the  sideboards  of  many  farmers. 
The  natural  result  of  this  change  of  the  habits  and  cus¬ 
toms  of  the  people  —  this  aping  of  European  manners 
and  morals,  —  was  to  suddenly  drain  our  country  of  its 
circulating  specie;  and  as  a  necessary  consequence,  the 
people  ran  in  debt,  times  became  difficult,  and  money 
hard  to  raise.1 

Ny  The  situation  was  serious,  and  yet  it  was  not  as 
dangerous  or  even  as  critical  as  it  has  generally 
been  represented,  because  the  fundamental  bases 
of  American  prosperity  were  untouched.  The  way 
by  which  Americans  could  meet  the  emergency  and 
recover  from  the  hard  times  was  fairly  evident  — 
first  to  economize,  and  then  to  find  new  outlets 
for  their  industrial  energies.  But  the  process  of 
adjustment  was  slow  and  painful.  There  were  not 
a  few  persons  in  the  United  States  who  were  even 
disposed  to  regret  that  Americans  were  not  safely 
under  British  protection  and  prospering  with  Great 
Britain,  instead  of  suffering  in  political  isolation. 

1  Samuel  Kercheval,  History  of  the  Valley  of  Virginia ,  1838,  pp. 
199-200. 


CHAPTER  III 


THE  CONFEDERATION 

When  peace  came  in  1783  there  were  in  the  United 
States  approximately  three  million  people,  who 
were  spread  over  the  whole  Atlantic  coast  from 
Maine  to  Georgia  and  back  into  the  interior  as  far 
as  the  Alleghany  Mountains ;  and  a  relatively  small 
number  of  settlers  had  crossed  the  mountain  bar¬ 
rier.  About  twenty  per  cent  of  the  population,  or 
some  six  hundred  thousand,  were  negro  slaves. 
There  was  also  a  large  alien  element  of  foreign 
birth  or  descent,  poor  when  they  arrived  in  Amer¬ 
ica,  and,  although  they  had  been  able  to  raise 
themselves  to  a  position  of  comparative  comfort, 
life  among  them  was  still  crude  and  rough.  Many 
of  the  people  were  poorly  educated  and  lacking  in 
cultivation  and  refinement  and  in  a  knowledge  of 
the  usages  of  good  society.  Not  only  were  they 
looked  down  upon  by  other  nations  of  the  world; 

there  was  within  the  United  States  itself  a  relatively 

35 


36  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


small  upper  class  inclined  to  regard  the  mass  of  the 
people  as  of  an  inferior  order. 

Thus,  while  forces  were  at  work  favorable  to 
democracy,  the  gentry  remained  in  control  of  af¬ 
fairs  after  the  Revolution,  although  their  numbers 
were  reduced  by  the  emigration  of  the  Loyalists 
and  their  power  was  lessened.  The  explanation  of 
this  aristocratic  control  may  be  found  in  the  fact 
that  the  generation  of  the  Revolution  had  been  ac¬ 
customed  to  monarchy  and  to  an  upper  class  and 
that  the  people  were  wont  to  take  their  ideas  and 
to  accept  suggestions  from  their  betters  without 
question  or  murmur.  This  deferential  attitude  is 
attested  by  the  indifference  of  citizens  to  the  right 
of  voting.  In  our  own  day,  before  the  great  exten¬ 
sion  of  woman  suffrage,  the  number  of  persons  vot¬ 
ing  approximated  twenty  per  cent  of  the  popula¬ 
tion,  but  after  the  Revolution  less  than  five  per 
cent  of  the  white  population  voted.  There  were 
many  limitations  upon  the  exercise  of  the  suffrage, 
but  the  small  number  of  voters  was  only  partially 
due  to  these  restrictions,  for  in  later  years,  without 
any  radical  change  in  suffrage  qualifications,  the 
proportion  of  citizens  who  voted  steadily  increased. 

The  fact  is  that  many  of  the  people  did  not  care 
to  vote.  Why  should  they,  when  they  were  only 


THE  CONFEDERATION 


37 


registering  the  will  or  the  wishes  of  their  superiors? 
But  among  the  relatively  small  number  who  con¬ 
stituted  the  governing  class  there  was  a  high  stand¬ 
ard  of  intelligence.  Popular  magazines  were  un¬ 
heard  of  and  newspapers  were  infrequent,  so  -that 
men  depended  largely  upon  correspondence  and 
personal  intercourse  for  the  interchange  of  ideas. 
There  was  time,  however,  for  careful  reading  of  the 
few  available  books;  there  was  time  for  thought,  for 
writing,  for  discussion,  and  for  social  intercourse. 
It  hardly  seems  too  much  to  say,  therefore,  that  there 
was  seldom,  if  ever,  a  people  —  certainly  never  a 
people  scattered  over  so  wide  a  territory — who  knew 
so  much  about  government  as  did  this  controlling 
element  of  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

The  practical  character,  as  well  as  the  political 
genius,  of  the  Americans  was  never  shown  to  better 
advantage  than  at  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution, 
when  the  quarrel  with  the  mother  country  was 
manifesting  itself  in  the  conflict  between  the  Gov¬ 
ernors,  and  other  appointed  agents  of  the  Crown, 
and  the  popularly  elected  houses  of  the  colonial  leg¬ 
islatures.  When  the  Crown  resorted  to  dissolving 
the  legislatures,  the  revolting  colonists  kept  up  and 
observed  the  forms  of  government.  When  the  leg¬ 
islature  was  prevented  from  meeting,  the  members 


38  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


would  come  together  and  call  themselves  a  congress 
or  a  convention,  and,  instead  of  adopting  laws  or 
orders,  would  issue  what  were  really  nothing  more 
than  recommendations,  but  which  they  expected 
would  be  obeyed  by  their  supporters.  To  enforce 
these  recommendations  extra-legal  committees, 
generally  backed  by  public  opinion  and  sometimes 
concretely  supported  by  an  organized  “mob,” 
would  meet  in  towns  and  counties  and  would  be 
often  effectively  centralized  where  the  opponents 
of  the  British  policy  were  in  control. 

'  In  several  of  the  colonies  the  want  of  orderly 
government  became  so  serious  that,  in  1775,  the 
Continental  Congress  advised  them  to  form  tem¬ 
porary  governments  until  the  trouble  with  Great 
Britain  had  been  settled.  When  independence 
was  declared  Congress  recommended  to  all  the 
States  that  they  should  adopt  governments  of  their 
own.  In  accordance  with  that  recommendation, 
in  the  course  of  a  very  few  years  each  State  estab¬ 
lished  an  independent  government  and  adopted  a 
written  constitution.  It  was  a  time  when  men  be¬ 
lieved  in  the  social  contract  or  the  “  compact  theory 
of  the  state,”  that  states  originated  through  agree¬ 
ment,  as  the  case  might  be,  between  king  and  no¬ 
bles,  between  king  and  people,  or  among  the  people 


THE  CONFEDERATION 


39 


themselves.  In  support  of  this  doctrine  no  less  an 
authority  than  the  Bible  was  often  quoted,  such  a 
passage  for  example  as  II  Samuel  v,  3 :  “  So  all  the 

elders  of  Israel  came  to  the  King  to  Hebron;  and 
King  David  made  a  covenant  with  them  in  Hebron 
before  the  Lord;  and  they  anointed  David  King 
over  Israel.”  As  a  philosophical  speculation  to  ex¬ 
plain  why  people  were  governed  or  consented  to  be 
governed,  this  theory  went  back  at  least  to  the 
Greeks,  and  doubtless  much  earlier;  and,  though  of 
some  significance  in  medieval  thought,  it  became  of 
greater  importance  in  British  political  philosophy, 
especially  through  the  works  of  Thomas  Hobbes  and 
John  Locke.  A  very  practical  application  of  the 
compact  theory  was  made  in  the  English  Revolu¬ 
tion  of  1688,  when  in  order  to  avoid  the  embarrass¬ 
ment  of  deposing  the  king,  the  convention  of  the 
Parliament  adopted  the  resolution:  “That  King 
James  the  Second,  having  endeavored  to  subvert 
the  Constitution  of  the  Kingdom,  by  breaking  the 

i 

original  Contract  between  King  and  People,  and 
having,  by  the  advice  of  Jesuits,  and  other  wicked 
persons,  violated  the  fundamental  Laws,  and  with¬ 
drawn  himself  out  of  this  Kingdom,  has  abdicated 
the  Government,  and  that  the  throne  is  hereby  va¬ 
cant.”  These  theories  were  developed  by  Jean 


40  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


Jacques  Rousseau  in  his  Contrat  Social  —  a  book 
so  attractively  written  that  it  eclipsed  all  other 
works  upon  the  subject  and  resulted  in  his  being 
regarded  as  the  author  of  the  doctrine  —  and 
through  him  they  spread  all  over  Europe. 

Conditions  in  America  did  more  than  lend  color 
to  pale  speculation;  they  seemed  to  take  this  hy¬ 
pothesis  out  of  the  realm  of  theory  and  to  give  it 
practical  application.  What  happened  when  men 
went  into  the  wilderness  to  live?  The  Pilgrim 
Fathers  on  board  the  Mayflower  entered  into 
an  agreement  which  was  signed  by  the  heads 
of  families  who  took  part  in  the  enterprise: 
“We,  whose  names  are  underwritten  .  .  .  Do 
by  these  presents,  solemnly  and  mutually,  in  the 
Presence  of  God  and  one  another,  covenant  and 
combine  ourselves  together  into  a  civil  Body 
Politick.” 

Other  colonies,  especially  in  New  England,  with 
this  example  before  them  of  a  social  contract  en¬ 
tered  into  similar  compacts  or  “plantation  cove¬ 
nants,”  as  they  were  called.  But  the  colonists  were 
also  accustomed  to  having  written  charters  granted 
which  continued  for  a  time  at  least  to  mark  the  ex¬ 
tent  of  governmental  powers.  Through  this  inter¬ 
mingling  of  theory  and  practice  it  was  the  most 


THE  CONFEDERATION 


41 


natural  thing  in  the  world,  when  Americans  came 
to  form  their  new  State  Governments,  that  they 
should  provide  written  instruments  framed  by  their 
own  representatives,  which  not  only  bound  them 
to  be  governed  in  this  way  but  also  placed  limita¬ 
tions  upon  the  governing  bodies.  As  the  first 
great  series  of  written  constitutions,  these  frames 
of  government  attracted  wide  attention.  Con¬ 
gress  printed  a  set  for  general  distribution,  and 
numerous  editions  were  circulated  both  at  home 
and  abroad. 

The  constitutions  were  brief  documents,  varying 
from  one  thousand  to  twelve  thousand  words  in 
length,  which  established  the  framework  of  the 
governmental  machinery.  Most  of  them,  before 
proceeding  to  practical  working  details,  enunciated 
a  series  of  general  principles  upon  the  subject  of 
government  and  political  morality  in  what  were 
called  declarations  or  bills  of  rights.  The  charac¬ 
ter  of  these  declarations  may  be  gathered  from  the 
following  excerpts : 

That  all  men  are  by  nature  equally  free  and  inde¬ 
pendent,  and  have  certain  inherent  rights,  .  .  .  the 
enjoyment  of  life  and  liberty,  with  the  means  of  ac¬ 
quiring  and  possessing  property,  and  pursuing  and 
obtaining  happiness  and  safety. 


42  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


That  no  man,  or  set  of  men,  are  entitled  to  exclu¬ 
sive  or  separate  emoluments  or  privileges  from  the 
community,  but  in  consideration  of  public  services. 

The  body  politic  is  formed  by  a  voluntary  association 
of  individuals;  it  is  a  social  compact  by  which  the 
whole  people  covenants  with  each  citizen  and  each  citi¬ 
zen  with  the  whole  people  that  all  shall  be  governed  by 
certain  laws  for  the  common  good. 

That  all  power  of  suspending  laws,  or  the  execution  of 
laws,  by  any  authority,  without  consent  of  the  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  the  people,  is  injurious  to  their  rights, 
and  ought  not  to  be  exercised. 

That  general  warrants,  .  .  .  are  grievous  and  op¬ 
pressive,  and  ought  not  to  be  granted. 

All  penalties  ought  to  be  proportioned  to  the  nature  of 
the  offence. 

That  sanguinary  laws  ought  to  be  avoided,  as  far  as  is 
consistent  with  the  safety  of  the  State;  and  no  law,  to 
inflict  cruel  and  unusual  pains  and  penalties,  ought  to 
be  made  in  any  case,  or  at  any  time  hereafter. 

No  magistrate  or  court  of  law  shall  demand  excessive 
bail  or  sureties,  impose  excessive  fines  .  .  . 

Every  individual  has  a  natural  and  unalienable  right 
to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own 
conscience,  and  reason;  .  .  . 


THE  CONFEDERATION 


43 


That  the  freedom  of  the  press  is  one  of  the  great  bul¬ 
warks  of  liberty,  and  can  never  be  restrained  but  by 
despotic  governments. 

It  will  be  perceived  at  once  that  these  are  but 
variations  of  the  English  Declaration  of  Rights  of 
1689,  which  indeed  was  consciously  followed  as  a 
model;  and  yet  there  is  a  world-wide  difference  be¬ 
tween  the  English  model  and  these  American  cop¬ 
ies.  The  earlier  document  enunciated  the  rights  of 
English  subjects,  the  recent  infringement  of  which 
made  it  desirable  that  they  should  be  reasserted 
in  convincing  form.  The  American  documents  as¬ 
serted  rights  which  the  colonists  generally  had  en¬ 
joyed  and  which  they  declared  to  be  “  governing 
principles  for  all  peoples  in  all  future  times.” 

But  the  greater  significance  of  these  State  Con¬ 
stitutions  is  to  be  found  in  their  quality  as  working 
instruments  of  government.  There  was  indeed 
little  difference  between  the  old  colonial  and  the 
new  State  Governments.  The  inhabitants  of  each 
of  the  Thirteen  States  had  been  accustomed  to  a 
large  measure  of  self-government,  and  when  they 
took  matters  into  their  own  hands  they  were  not 
disposed  to  make  any  radical  changes  in  the  forms 
to  which  they  had  become  accustomed.  Accord¬ 
ingly  the  State  Governments  that  were  adopted 


44  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


simply  continued  a  framework  of  government  al¬ 
most  identical  with  that  of  colonial  times.  To  be 
sure,  the  Governor  and  other  appointed  officials 
were  now  elected  either  by  the  people  or  the  legis¬ 
lature,  and  so  were  ultimately  responsible  to  the 
electors  instead  of  to  the  Crown;  and  other  changes 
were  made  which  in  the  long  run  might  prove  of 
far-reaching  and  even  of  vital  significance;  and  yet 
the  machinery  of  government  seemed  the  same  as 
that  to  which  the  people  were  already  accustomed. 
The  average  man  was  conscious  of  no  difference  at 
all  in  the  working  of  the  Government  under  the 
new  order.  In  fact,  in  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Is¬ 
land,  the  most  democratic  of  all  the  colonies,  where 
the  people  had  been  privileged  to  elect  their  own 
governors,  as  well  as  legislatures,  no  change  what¬ 
ever  was  necessary  and  the  old  charters  were  con¬ 
tinued  as  State  Constitutions  down  to  1818  and 
V1842,  respectively. 

To  one  who  has  been  accustomed  to  believe  that 
the  separation  from  a  monarchical  government 
meant  the  establishment  of  democracy,  a  reading 
of  these  first  State  Constitutions  is  likely  to  cause 
a  rude  shock.  A  shrewd  English  observer,  travel¬ 
ing  a  generation  later  in  the  United  States,  went 
to  the  root  of  the  whole  matter  in  remarking  of 


THE  CONFEDERATION 


45 


the  Americans  that,  “When  their  independence 
was  achieved  their  mental  condition  was  not  in-  . 
stantly  changed.  Their  deference  for  rank  and  for 
judicial  and  legislative  authority  continued  nearly 
unimpaired.”1  They  might  declare  that  “all  men 
are  created  equal,”  and  bills  of  rights  might  assert 
that  government  rested  upon  the  consent  of  the 
governed;  but  these  constitutions  carefully  pro¬ 
vided  that  such  consent  should  come  from  property 
owners,  and,  in  many  of  the  States,  from  religious 
believers  and  even  followers  of  the  Christian  faith. 
“The  man  of  small  means  might  vote,  but  none 
save  well-to-do  Christians  could  legislate,  and  in 
many  states  none  but  a  rich  Christian  could  be  a 
governor.”2  In  South  Carolina,  for  example,  a 
freehold  of  £10,000  currency  was  required  of  the 
Governor,  Lieutenant  Governor,  and  members  of 
the  Council;  £2,000  of  the  members  of  the  Senate; 
and,  while  every  elector  was  eligible  to  the  House 
of  Representatives,  he  had  to  acknowledge  the  be¬ 
ing  of  a  God  and  to  believe  in  a  future  state  of 
rewards  and  punishments,  as  well  as  to  hold  “a 
freehold  at  least  of  fifty  acres  of  land,  or  a  town  lot.” 

1  George  Combe,  Tour  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i,  p.  205. 

aMcMaster,  Acquisition  of  Industrial,  Popular,  and  Political 
Rights  of  Man  in  America,  p.  20. 


46  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


It  was  government  by  a  property-owning  class, 
but  in  comparison  with  other  countries  this  class 
represented  a  fairly  large  and  increasing  proportion 
of  the  population.  In  America  the  opportunity  of 
becoming  a  property-owner  was  open  to  every  one, 
or,  as  that  phrase  would  then  have  been  understood, 
to  most  white  men.  This  system  of  class  control  is 
illustrated  by  the  fact  that,  with  the  exception  of 
Massachusetts,  the  new  State  Constitutions  were 
never  submitted  to  the  people  for  approval. 

The  democratic  sympathizer  of  today  is  inclined 
to  point  to  those  first  State  Governments  as  a  con¬ 
tinuance  of  the  old  order.  But  to  the  conservative 
of  that  time  it  seemed  as  if  radical  and  revolution¬ 
ary  changes  were  taking  place.  The  bills  of  rights 
declared,  '‘That  no  men,  or  set  of  men,  are  entitled 
to  exclusive  or  separate  emoluments  or  privileges 
from  the  community,  but  in  consideration  of  public 
services.”  *  Property  qualifications  and  other  re¬ 
strictions  on  office-holding  and  the  exercise  of  the 
suffrage  were  lessened.  Four  States  declared  in 
their  constitutions  against  the  entailment  of  es¬ 
tates,  and  primogeniture  was  abolished  in  aris¬ 
tocratic  Virginia.  There  was  a  fairly  complete 
abolition  of  all  vestiges  of  feudal  tenure  in  the 
holding  of  land,  so  that  it  may  be  said  that  in  this 


THE  CONFEDERATION 


47 


period  full  ownership  of  property  was  established. 
The  further  separation  of  church  and  state  was  also 
carried  out. 

Certainly  leveling  influences  were  at  work,  and 
the  people  as  a  whole  had  moved  one  step  farther 
in  the  direction  of  equality  and  democracy,  and  it 
was  well  that  the  Revolution  was  not  any  more  rad¬ 
ical  and  revolutionary  than  it  was.  The  change 
was  gradual  and  therefore  more  lasting.  One  finds 
readily  enough  contemporary  statements  to  the 
effect  that,  “Although  there  are  no  nobles  in  Amer¬ 
ica,  there  is  a  class  of  men  denominated  ‘gentle¬ 
men,’  who,  by  reason  of  their  wealth,  their  talents, 
their  education,  their  families,  or  the  offices  they 
hold,  aspire  to  a  preeminence,”  but,  the  same  ob¬ 
server  adds,  this  is  something  which  “the  people  re¬ 
fuse  to  grant  them.”  Another  contemporary  con¬ 
tributes  the  observation  that  there  was  not  so  much 
respect  paid  to  gentlemen  of  rank  as  there  should 
be,  and  that  the  lower  orders  of  people  behave  as 
if  they  were  on  a  footing  of  equality  with  them. 

Whether  the  State  Constitutions  are  to  be  re¬ 
garded  as  property-conserving,  aristocratic  instru¬ 
ments,  or  as  progressive  documents,  depends  upon 
the  point  of  view.  And  so  it  is  with  the  spirit  of 
union  or  of  nationality  in  the  United  States.  One 


48  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


student  emphasizes  the  fact  of  there  being  “thir¬ 
teen  independent  republics  differing  .  .  .  widely 
in  climate,  in  soil,  in  occupation,  in  everything 
which  makes  up  the  social  and  economic  life  of  the 
people”;  while  another  sees  “the  United  States  a 
nation.”  There  is  something  to  be  said  for  both 
sides,  and  doubtless  the  truth  lies  between  them, 
for  there  were  forces  making  for  disintegration  as 
well  as  for  unification.  To  the  student  of  the  pres¬ 
ent  day,  however,  the  latter  seem  to  have  been  the 
stronger  and  more  important,  although  the  possi¬ 
bility  was  never  absent  that  the  thirteen  States 
would  go  their  separate  ways. 

There  are  few  things  so  potent  as  a  common  dan¬ 
ger  to  bring  discordant  elements  into  working  har¬ 
mony.  Several  times  in  the  century  and  a  half  of 
their  existence,  when  the  colonies  found  themselves 
threatened  by  their  enemies,  they  had  united,  or  at 
least  made  an  effort  to  unite,  for  mutual  help.  The 
New  England  Confederation  of  1643  was  organ¬ 
ized  primarily  for  protection  against  the  Indians 
and  incidentally  against  the  Dutch  and  French. 
Whenever  trouble  threatened  with  any  of  the  Euro¬ 
pean  powers  or  with  the  Indians  —  and  that  was 
frequently  —  a  plan  would  be  broached  for  getting 
the  colonies  to  combine  their  efforts,  sometimes 


THE  CONFEDERATION 


49 


for  the  immediate  necessity  and  sometimes  for  a 
broader  purpose.  The  best  known  of  these  plans 
was  that  presented  to  the  Albany  Congress  of  1754, 
which  had  been  called  to  make  effective  prepara¬ 
tion  for  the  inevitable  struggle  with  the  French  and 
Indians.  The  beginning  of  the  troubles  which  cul¬ 
minated  in  the  final  breach  with  Great  Britain  had 
quickly  brought  united  action  in  the  form  of  the 
Stamp  Act  Congress  of  1765,  in  the  Committees 
of  Correspondence,  and  then  in  the  Continental 
Congress. 

It  w’as  not  merely  that  the  leaven  of  the  Revolu¬ 
tion  was  already  working  to  bring  about  the  freer 
interchange  of  ideas;  instinct  and  experience  led  the 
colonies  to  united  action.  The  very  day  that  the 
Continental  Congress  appointed  a  committee  to 
frame  a  declaration  of  independence,  another  com¬ 
mittee  was  ordered  to  prepare  articles  of  union. 
A  month  later,  as  soon  as  the  Declaration  of  In¬ 
dependence  had  been  adopted,  this  second  com¬ 
mittee,  of  which  John  Dickinson  of  Pennsylvania 
was  chairman,  presented  to  Congress  a  report  in 
the  form  of  Articles  of  Confederation.  Although 
the  outbreak  of  fighting  made  some  sort  of  united 
action  imperative,  this  plan  of  union  was  subjected 
to  debate  intermittently  for  over  sixteen  months 


4 


50  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


and  even  after  being  adopted  by  Congress,  toward 
the  end  of  1777,  it  was  not  ratified  by  the  States 
until  March,  1781,  when  the  war  was  already  draw¬ 
ing  to  a  close.  The  exigencies  of  the  hour  forced 
Congress,  without  any  authorization,  to  act  as  if  it 
had  been  duly  empowered  and  in  general  to  proceed 
as  if  the  Confederation  had  been  formed. 

Benjamin  Franklin  was  an  enthusiast  for  union. 
It  was  he  who  had  submitted  the  plan  of  union  to 
the  Albany  Congress  in  1754,  which  with  modifica¬ 
tions  was  recommended  by  that  congress  for  adop¬ 
tion.  It  provided  for  a  Grand  Council  of  represent¬ 
atives  chosen  by  the  legislature  of  each  colony,  the 
members  to  be  proportioned  to  the  contribution  of 
that  colony  to  the  American  military  service.  In 
matters  concerning  the  colonies  as  a  whole,  espe¬ 
cially  in  Indian  affairs,  the  Grand  Council  was  to  be 
given  extensive  powers  of  legislation  and  taxation. 
The  executive  was  to  be  a  President  or  Governor- 
General,  appointed  and  paid  by  the  Crown,  with 
the  right  of  nominating  all  military  officers,  and 
with  a  veto  upon  all  acts  of  the  Grand  Council. 
The  project  was  far  in  advance  of  the  times  and 
ultimately  failed  of  acceptance,  but  in  1775,  with 
the  beginning  of  the  troubles  with  Great  Britain, 
Franklin  took  his  Albany  plan  and,  after  modifying 


THE  CONFEDERATION 


51 


it  in  accordance  with  the  experience  of  twenty 
years,  submitted  it  to  the  Continental  Congress  as 
a  new  plan  of  government  under  which  the  colonies 
might  unite. 

Franklin’s  plan  of  1775  seems  to  have  attracted 
little  attention  in  America,  and  possibly  it  was  not 
generally  known;  but  much  was  made  of  it  abroad, 
where  it  soon  became  public,  probably  in  the  same 
way  that  other  Franklin  papers  came  out.  It 
seems  to  have  been  his  practice  to  make,  with  his 
own  hand,  several  copies  of  such  a  document,  which 
he  would  send  to  his  friends  with  the  statement 
that  as  the  document  in  question  was  confidential 
they  might  not  otherwise  see  a  copy  of  it.  Of 
course  the  inevitable  happened,  and  such  docu¬ 
ments  found  their  way  into  print  to  the  apparent 
surprise  and  dismay  of  the  author.  Incidentally 
this  practice  caused  confusion  in  later  years,  be¬ 
cause  each  possessor  of  such  a  document  would 
claim  that  he  had  the  original.  Whatever  may 
have  been  the  procedure  in  this  particular  case,  it 
is  fairly  evident  that  Dickinson’s  committee  took 
Frauklin’s  plan  of  1775  as  the  starting  point  of 
its  work,  and  after  revision  submitted  it  to  Con-  \J 
gress  as  their  report;  for  some  of  the  most  impor¬ 
tant  features  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation 


52  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

are  to  be  found,  sometimes  word  for  word,  in 
Franklin’s  draft. 

This  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  Articles  of 
Confederation  is  helpful  and  perhaps  essential  in 
understanding  the  form  of  government  established, 
because  that  government  in  its  main  features  had 
been  devised  for  an  entirely  different  condition 
of  affairs,  when  a  strong,  centralized  government 
would  not  have  been  accepted  even  if  it  had  been 
wanted.  It  provided  for  a  “league  of  friendship,” 
with  the  primary  purpose  of  considering  prepara¬ 
tion  for  action  rather  than  of  taking  the  initiative. 
Furthermore,  the  final  stages  of  drafting  the  Ar¬ 
ticles  of  Confederation  had  occurred  at  the  out¬ 
break  of  the  war,  when  the  people  of  the  various 
States  were  showing  a  disposition  to  follow  readily 
suggestions  that  came  from  those  whom  they  could 
trust  and  when  they  seemed  to  be  willing  to  sub¬ 
mit  without  compulsion  to  orders  from  the  same 
source.  These  circumstances,  quite  as  much  as 
the  inexperience  of  Congress  and  the  jealousy  of  the 
States,  account  for  the  inefficient  form  of  govern¬ 
ment  which  was  devised;  and  inefficient  the  Con¬ 
federation  certainly  was.  The  only  organ  of  gov¬ 
ernment  was  a  Congress  in  which  every  State 
was  entitled  to  one  vote  and  was  represented  by  a 


THE  CONFEDERATION 


53 


delegation  whose  members  were  appointed  annually 
as  the  legislature  of  the  State  might  direct,  whose 
expenses  were  paid  by  the  State,  and  who  were  sub¬ 
ject  to  recall.  In  other  words,  it  was  a  council  of 
States  whose  representatives  had  little  incentive  to 
independence  of  action. 

Extensive  powers  were  granted  to  this  Congress 
“of  determining  on  peace  and  war,  «...  of  en¬ 
tering  into  treaties  and  alliances,”  of  maintaining 
an  army  and  a  navy,  of  establishing  post  offices,  of 
coining  money,  and  of  making  requisitions  upon 
the  States  for  their  respective  share  of  expenses 
“incurred  for  the  common  defence  or  general  wel¬ 
fare.”  But  none  of  these  powers  could  be  exer¬ 
cised  without  the  consent  of  nine  States,  which  was 
equivalent  to  requiring  a  two-thirds  vote,  and  even 
when  such  a  vote  had  been  obtained  and  a  decision 
had  been  reached,  there  was  nothing  to  compel  the 
individual  States  to  obey  beyond  the  mere  declara¬ 
tion  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation  that,  “Every 
State  shall  abide  by  the  determinations  of  the 
United  States  in  Congress  assembled.” 

No  executive  was  provided  for  except  that  Con¬ 
gress  was  authorized  “to  appoint  such  other  com¬ 
mittees  and  civil  officers  as  may  be  necessary  for 
managing  the  general  affairs  of  the  United  States. 


54  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


under  their  direction.”  In  judicial  matters,  Con¬ 
gress  was  to  serve  as  “the  last  resort  on  appeal  in 
all  disputes  and  differences”  between  States;  and 
Congress  might  establish  courts  for  the  trial  of 
piracy  and  felonies  committed  on  the  high  seas  and 
for  determining  appeals  in  cases  of  prize  capture. 

4  The  plan  of  a  government  was  there  but  it  lacked 
any  driving  force.  Congress  might  declare  war 
but  the  States  might  decline  to  participate  in  it; 
Congress  might  enter  into  treaties  but  it  could  not 
make  the  States  live  up  to  them;  Congress  might 
borrow  money  but  it  could  not  be  sure  of  repaying 
it;  and  Congress  might  decide  disputes  without  be¬ 
ing  able  to  make  the  parties  accept  the  decision. 
The  pressure  of  necessity  might  keep  the  States  to¬ 
gether  for  a  time,  yet  there  is  no  disguising  the  fact 
that  the  Articles  of  Confederation  formed  nothing 
more  than  a  gentlemen’s  agreement.  4 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  NORTHWEST  ORDINANCE 

i 

The  population  of  the  United  States  was  like  a 
body  of  water  that  was  being  steadily  enlarged  by 
internal  springs  and  external  tributaries.  It  was 
augmented  both  from  within  and  from  without, 
from  natural  increase  and  from  immigration.  It 
had  spread  over  the  whole  coast  from  Maine  to 
Georgia  and  slowly  back  into  the  interior,  at  first 
along  the  lines  of  river  communication  and  then 
gradually  filling  up  the  spaces  between  until  the 
larger  part  of  the  available  land  east  of  the  Alle¬ 
ghany  Mountains  was  settled.  There  the  stream 
was  checked  as  if  dammed  by  the  mountain  barrier, 
but  the  population  was  trickling  through  wherever 
it  could  find  an  opening,  slowly  wearing  channels, 
until  finally,  when  the  obstacles  were  overcome,  it 
broke  through  with  a  rush. 

Twenty  years  before  the  Revolution  the  expand¬ 
ing  population  had  reached  the  mountains  and  was 

55 


56  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


ready  to  go  beyond.  The  difficulty  of  crossing  the 
mountains  was  not  insuperable,  but  the  French  and 
Indian  War,  followed  by  Pontiac’s  Conspiracy, 
made  outlying  frontier  settlement  dangerous  if  not 
impossible.  The  arbitrary  restriction  of  western 
settlement  by  the  Proclamation  of  1763  did  not 
stop  the  more  adventurous  but  did  hold  back  the 
mass  of  the  population  until  near  the  time  of  the 
Revolution,  when  a  few  bands  of  settlers  moved 
into  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  and  rendered  im¬ 
portant  but  inconspicuous  service  in  the  fighting. 
But  so  long  as  the  title  to  that  territory  was  in 
doubt  no  considerable  body  of  people  would  move 
into  it,  and  it  was  not  until  the  Treaty  of  Peace  in 
1783  determined  that  the  western  country  as  far  as 
the  Mississippi  River  was  to  belong  to  the  United 
States  that  the  dammed-up  population  broke  over 
the  mountains  in  a  veritable  flood. 

The  western  country  and  its  people  presented  no 
easy  problem  to  the  United  States:  how  to  hold 
those  people  when  the  pull  was  strong  to  draw  them 
from  the  Union;  how  to  govern  citizens  so  widely 
separated  from  the  older  communities;  and,  of 
most  immediate  importance,  how  to  hold  the 
land  itself.  It  was,  indeed,  the  question  of  the 
ownership  of  the  land  beyond  the  mountains  which 


THE  NORTHWEST  ORDINANCE 


57 


delayed  the  ratification  of  the  Articles  of  Confedera¬ 
tion.  Some  of  the  States,  by  right  of  their  colonial 
charter  grants  “from  sea  to  sea,”  were  claiming 
large  parts  of  the  western  region.  Other  States, 
whose  boundaries  were  fixed,  could  put  forward  no 
such  claims;  and,  as  they  were  therefore  limited  in 
their  area  of  expansion,  they  were  fearful  lest  in  the 
future  they  should  be  overbalanced  by  those  States 
which  might  obtain  extensive  property  in  the  West. 
It  was  maintained  that  the  Proclamation  of  1763 
had  changed  this  western  territory  into  “Crown 
lands,”  and  as,  by  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  the  title 
had  passed  to  the  United  States,  the  non-claimant 
States  had  demanded  in  self-defense  that  the  west¬ 
ern  land  should  belong  to  the  country  as  a  whole 
and  not  to  the  individual  States.  Rhode  Island, 
Maryland,  and  Delaware  were  most  seriously  af¬ 
fected,  and  they  were  insistent  upon  this  point. 
Rhode  Island  and  at  length  Delaware  gave  in,  so 
that  by  February,  1779,  Maryland  alone  held  out. 
In  May  of  that  year  the  instructions  of  Maryland 
to  her  delegates  were  read  in  Congress,  positively 
forbidding  them  to  ratify  the  plan  of  union  unless 
they  should  receive  definite  assurances  that  the 
western  country  would  become  the  common  prop¬ 
erty  of  the  United  States.  As  the  consent  of  all 


58  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


of  the  Thirteen  States  was  necessary  to  the  estab¬ 
lishment  of  the  Confederation,  this  refusal  of  Mary¬ 
land  brought  matters  to  a  crisis.  The  question 
was  eagerly  discussed,  and  early  in  1780  the  dead¬ 
lock  was  broken  by  the  action  of  New  York  in 
authorizing  her  representatives  to  cede  her  entire 
claim  in  western  lands  to  the  United  States. 

It  matters  little  that  the  claim  of  New  York  was 
not  as  good  as  that  of  some  of  the  other  States,  es¬ 
pecially  that  of  Virginia.  The  whole  situation  was 
changed.  It  was  no  longer  necessary  for  Maryland 
to  defend  her  position;  but  the  claimant  States 
were  compelled  to  justify  themselves  before  the 
country  for  not  following  New  York’s  example. 
Congress  wisely  refrained  from  any  assertion  of 
jurisdiction,  and  only  urgently  recommended  that 
States  having  claims  to  western  lands  should  cede 
them  in  order  that  the  one  obstacle  to  the  final  rati¬ 
fication  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation  might 
be  removed. 

Without  much  question  Virginia’s  claim  was  the 
strongest;  but  the  pressure  was  too  great  even  for 
her,  and  she  finally  yielded,  ceding  to  the  United 
States,  upon  certain  conditions,  all  her  lands  north¬ 
west  of  the  Ohio  River.  Then  the  Maryland 
delegates  were  empowered  to  ratify  the  Articles  of 


THE  NORTHWEST  ORDINANCE 


59 


Confederation.  This  was  early  in  1781,  and  in  a 
very  short  time  the  other  States  had  followed  the 
example  of  New  York  and  Virginia.  Certain  of  the 
conditions  imposed  by  Virginia  were  not  acceptable 
to  Congress,  and  three  years  later,  upon  specific 
request,  that  State  withdrew  the  objectionable 
conditions  and  made  the  cession  absolute. 

The  territory  thus  ceded,  north  and  west  of  the 
Ohio  River,  constituted  the  public  domain.  Its 
boundaries  were  somewhat  indefinite,  but  subse¬ 
quent  surveys  confirmed  the  rough  estimate  that  it 
contained  from  one  to  two  hundred  millions  of 
acres.  It  was  supposed  to  be  worth,  on  the  aver¬ 
age,  about  a  dollar  an  acre,  which  would  make  this 
property  an  asset  sufficient  to  meet  the  debts  of  the 
war  and  to  leave  a  balance  for  the  running  expenses 
of  the  Government.  It  thereby  became  one  of  the 
strong  bonds  holding  the  Union  together. 


“Land!”  was  the  first  cry  of  the  storm-tossed  mar¬ 
iners  of  Columbus.  For  three  centuries  the  leading 
fact  of  American  history  has  been  that  soon  after  1600 
a  body  of  Europeans,  mostly  Englishmen,  settled  on 
the  edge  of  the  greatest  piece  of  unoccupied  agricul¬ 
tural  land  in  the  temperate  zone,  and  proceeded  to 
subdue  it  to  the  uses  of  man.  For  three  centuries  the 
chief  task  of  American  mankind  has  been  to  go  up 


60  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


westward  against  the  land  and  to  possess  it.  Our 
wars,  our  independence,  our  state  building,  our  politi¬ 
cal  democracy,  our  plasticity  with  respect  to  immi¬ 
gration,  our  mobility  of  thought,  our  ardor  of  initiative, 
our  mildness  and  our  prosperity,  all  are  but  incidents 
or  products  of  this  prime  historical  fact.1 

It  is  seldom  that  one’s  attention  is  so  caught  and 
held  as  by  the  happy  suggestion  that  American  in¬ 
terest  in  land  —  or  rather  interest  in  American  land 
—  began  with  the  discovery  of  the  continent.  Even 
a  momentary  consideration  of  the  subject,  however, 
is  sufficient  to  indicate  how  important  was  the  desire 
for  land  as  a  motive  of  colonization.  The  founda¬ 
tion  of  European  governmental  and  social  organiza¬ 
tions  had  been  laid  in  feudalism —  a  system  of  land- 
holding  and  service.  And  although  European  states 
might  have  lost  their  original  feudal  character,  and 
although  new  classes  had  arisen,  land-holding  still 
remained  the  basis  of  social  distinction. 

One  can  readily  imagine  that  America  would  be 
considered  as  El  Dorado,  where  one  of  the  rarest 
commodities  as  well  as  one  of  the  most  precious  pos¬ 
sessions  was  found  in  almost  unlimited  quantities 
and  could  be  had  for  the  asking.  It  is  no  wonder 

1  Lecture  by  J.  Franklin  Jameson  before  the  Trustees  of  the 
Carnegie  Institution,  at  Washington,  in  1912,  printed  in  the 
History  Teacher's  Magazine,  vol.  iv,  1913,  p.  5. 


THE  NORTHWEST  ORDINANCE 


61 


that  family  estates  were  sought  in  America  and 
that  to  the  lower  classes  it  seemed  as  if  a  heaven 
were  opening  on  earth.  Even  though  available 
land  appeared  to  be  almost  unlimited  in  quantity 
and  easy  to  acquire,  it  was  a  possession  that  was 
generally  increasing  in  value.  Of  course  wasteful 
methods  of  farming  wore  out  some  lands,  especially 
in  the  South;  but,  taking  it  by  and  large  through¬ 
out  the  country,  with  time  and  increasing  density 
of  population  the  value  of  the  land  was  increasing. 
The  acquisition  of  land  was  a  matter  of  investment 
or  at  least  of  speculation.  In  fact,  the  purchase  of 
land  was  one  of  the  favorite  get -rich-quick  schemes 
of  the  time.  George  Washington  was  not  the  only 
man  who  invested  largely  in  western  lands.  A 
list  of  those  who  did  would  read  like  a  political 
or  social  directory  of  the  time.  Patrick  Henry, 
James  Wilson,  Robert  Morris,  Gouverneur  Morris, 
Chancellor  Kent,  Henry  Knox,  and  James  Monroe 
were  among  them. 1 

It  is  therefore  easy  to  understand  why  so  much 
importance  attached  to  the  claims  of  the  several 
States  and  to  the  cession  of  that  western  land  by 

1  Not  all  the  speculators  were  able  to  keep  what  they  acquired. 
Fifteen  million  acres  of  land  in  Kentucky  were  offered  for  sale  in 
1800  for  non-payment  of  taxes.  Channing,  History  of  the  United 
States,  vol.  iv,  p.  91. 


62  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


them  to  the  United  States.  But  something  more 
was  necessary.  If  the  land  was  to  attain  anything 
like  its  real  value,  settlers  must  be  induced  to  oc¬ 
cupy  it.  Of  course  it  was  possible  to  let  the  people 
go  out  as  they  pleased  and  take  up  land,  and  to  let 
the  Government  collect  from  them  as  might  be  pos- 

0 

sible  at  a  fixed  rate.  But  experience  during  colo¬ 
nial  days  had  shown  the  weakness  of  such  a  method, 
and  Congress  was  apparently  determined  to  keep 
under  its  own  control  the  region  which  it  now  pos¬ 
sessed,  to  provide  for  orderly  sale,  and  to  permit 
settlement  only  so  far  as  it  might  not  endanger  the 
national  interests.  The  method  of  land  sales  and 
the  question  of  government  for  the  western  coun¬ 
try  were  recognized  as  different  aspects  of  the  same 
problem.  The  Virginia  offer  of  cession  forced  the 
necessity  of  a  decision,  and  no  sooner  was  the  Vir¬ 
ginia  offer  framed  in  an  acceptable  form,  in  1783, 
than  two  committees  were  appointed  by  Congress 
to  report  upon  these  two  questions  of  land  sales  and 
of  government. 

Thomas  Jefferson  was  made  chairman  of  both 
these  committees.  He  was  then  forty  years  old 
and  one  of  the  most  remarkable  men  in  the  country. 
Born  on  the  frontier  —  his  father  from  the  upper 
middle  class,  his  mother  “a  Randolph”  —  he  had 


THE  NORTHWEST  ORDINANCE  63 

been  trained  to  an  outdoor  life;  but  he  was  also  a 
prodigy  in  his  studies  and  entered  William  and 
Mary  College  with  advanced  standing  at  the  age  of 
eighteen.  Many  stories  are  told  of  his  precocity 
and  ability,  all  of  which  tend  to  forecast  the  later 
man  of  catholic  tastes,  omnivorous  interest,  and  ex¬ 
tensive  but  superficial  knowledge;  he  was  a  strange 
combination  of  natural  aristocrat  and  theoretical 
democrat,  of  philosopher  and  practical  politician. 
After  having  been  a  student  in  the  law  office  of 
George  Wythe,  and  being  a  friend  of  Patrick  Henry , 
Jefferson  early  espoused  the  cause  of  the  Revolu¬ 
tion,  and  it  was  his  hand  that  drafted  the  Declara¬ 
tion  of  Independence.  He  then  resigned  from  Con¬ 
gress  to  assist  in  the  organization  of  government  in 
his  own  State.  For  two  years  and  a  half  he  served 
in  the  Virginia  Assembly  and  brought  about  the 
repeal  of  the  law  of  entailment,  the  abolitiofi  of 
primogeniture,  the  recognition  of  freedom  of  con¬ 
science,  and  the  encouragement  of  education.  He 
was  Governor  of  Virginia  for  two  years  and  then, 
having  declined  reelection,  returned  to  Congress  in 
1783.  There,  among  his  other  accomplishments, 
as  chairman  of  the  committee,  he  reported  the 
Treaty  of  Peace  and.  as  chairman  of  another  com¬ 
mittee,  devised  and  persuaded  Congress  to  adopt 


64  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


a  national  system  of  coinage  which  in  its  essentials 
is  still  in  use. 

It  is  easy  to  criticize  Jefferson  and  to  pick  flaws 
in  the  things  that  he  said  as  well  as  in  the  things 
that  he  did,  but  practically  every  one  admits  that 
he  was  closely  in  touch  with  the  course  of  events 
and  understood  the  temper  of  his  contemporaries. 
In  this  period  of  transition  from  the  old  order  to  the 
new,  he  seems  to  have  expressed  the  genius  of 
American  institutions  better  than  almost  any  other 
man  of  his  generation.  He  possessed  a  quality 
that  enabled  him,  in  the  Declaration  of  Independ¬ 
ence,  to  give  voice  to  the  hopes  and  aspirations  of  a 
rising  nationality  and  that  enabled  him  in  his  own 
State  to  bring  about  so  many  reforms. 

Just  how  much  actual  influence  Thomas  Jeffer¬ 
son  had  in  the  framing  of  the  American  land  policy 
is  not  clear.  Although  the  draft  of  the  committee 
report  in  1784  is  in  Jefferson’s  handwriting,  it  is  al¬ 
together  probable  that  more  credit  is  to  be  given  to 
Thomas  Hutchins,  the  Geographer  of  the  United 
States,  and  to  William  Grayson  of  Virginia,  espe¬ 
cially  for  the  final  form  which  the  measure  took; 
for  Jefferson  retired  from  the  chairmanship  and  had 
already  gone  to  Europe  when  the  Land  Ordinance 
was  adopted  by  Congress  in  1785.  This  ordinance 


THE  NORTHWEST  ORDINANCE 


65 


has  been  superseded  by  later  enactments,  to  which 
references  are  usually  made;  but  the  original  ordi-^ 
nance  is  one  of  the  great  pieces  of  American  legis¬ 
lation,  for  it  contained  the  fundamentals  of  the 
American  land  system  which,  with  the  modifica¬ 
tions  experience  has  introduced,  has  proved  to  be 
permanently  workable  and  which  has  been  envied 
and  in  several  instances  copied  by  other  countries.  * 
Like  almost  all  successful  institutions  of  that  sort, 
the  Land  Ordinance  of  1785  was  not  an  immedi¬ 
ate  creation  but  was  a  development  out  of  former 
practices  and  customs  and  was  in  the  nature  of  a 
compromise.  Its  essential  features  were  the  meth¬ 
od  of  survey  and  the  process  for  the  sale  of  land. 
New  England,  with  its  town  system,  had  in  the 
course  of  its  expansion  been  accustomed  to  proceed 
in  an  orderly  method  but  on  a  relatively  small  scale. 
The  South,  on  the  other  hand,  had  granted  lands 
on  a  larger  scale  and  had  permitted  individual  se¬ 
lection  in  a  haphazard  manner.  The  plan  which 
Congress  adopted  was  that  of  the  New  England 
survey  with  the  Southern  method  of  extensive 
holdings.  The  system  is  repellent  in  its  rectangu¬ 
lar  orderliness,  but  it  made  the  process  of  recording 
titles  easy  and  complete,  and  it  was  capable  of  in¬ 
definite  expansion.  These  were  matters  of  cardinal 


66  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


importance,  for  in  the  course  of  one  hundred  and 
forty  years  the  United  States  was  to  have  under  its 
control  nearly  two  thousand  million  acres  of  land. 

j  The  primary  feature  of  the  land  policy  was  the 
orderly  survey  in  advance  of  sale.  In  the  next  place 
the  township  was  taken  as  the  unit,  and  its  size  was 
fixed  at  six  miles  square.  Provision  was  then  made 
for  the  sale  of  townships  alternately  entire  and  by 
sections  of  one  mile  square,  or  640  acres  each.  In 
every  township  a  section  was  reserved  for  educa¬ 
tional  purposes;  that  is,  the  land  was  to  be  dis¬ 
posed  of  and  the  proceeds  used  for  the  development 
of  public  schools  in  that  region.  And,  finally,  the 
United  States  reserved  four  sections  in  the  cen¬ 
ter  of  each  township  to  be  disposed  of  at  a  later 
time.  It  was  expected  that  a  great  increase  in 
the  value  of  the  land  would  result,  and  it  was  pro¬ 
posed  that  the  Government  should  reap  a  part  of 
the  profits. 

It  is  evident  that  the  primary  purpose  of  the 
public  land  policy  as  first  developed  was  to  acquire 
revenue  for  the  Government;  but  it  was  also  evi¬ 
dent  that  there  was  a  distinct  purpose  of  encourag¬ 
ing  settlement.  The  two  were  not  incompatible, 
but  the  greater  interest  of  the  Government  was  in 
obtaining  a  return  for  the  property. 


THE  NORTHWEST  ORDINANCE  67 

The  other  committee  of  which  Jefferson  was 
chairman  made  its  report  of  a  plan  for  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  western  territory  upon  the  very  day 
that  the  Virginia  cession  was  finally  accepted, 
March  1,  1784;  and  with  some  important  modifica¬ 
tions  Jefferson’s  ordinance,  or  the  Ordinance  of 
1784  as  it  was  commonly  called,  was  ultimately 
adopted.  In  this  case  Jefferson  rendered  a  service 
similar  to  that  of  framing  the  Declaration  of  In- 
pendence.  His  plan  was  somewhat  theoretical  and 
visionary,  but  largely  practical,  and  it  was  con¬ 
structive  work  of  a  high  order,  displaying  not 
so  much  originality  as  sympathetic  appreciation 
of  what  had  already  been  done  and  an  instinctive 
forecast  of  future  development.  Jefferson  seemed 
to  be  able  to  gather  up  ideas,  some  conscious  and 
some  latent  in  men’s  minds,  and  to  express  them 
in  a  form  that  was  generally  acceptable. 

It  is  interesting  to  find  in  the  Articles  of  Confed¬ 
eration  (Article  XI)  that,  “Canada  acceding  to 
this  confederation,  and  joining  in  the  measures  of 
the  United  States,  shall  be  admitted  into,  and  en¬ 
titled  to  all  the  advantages  of  this  Union:  but  no 
other  colony  shall  be  admitted  into  the  same  unless 
such  admission  be  agreed  to  by  nine  States.”  The 
real  importance  of  this  article  lay  in  the  suggestion 


68  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

of  an  enlargement  of  the  Confederation.  The  Con¬ 
federation  was  never  intended  to  be  a  union  of  only 
thirteen  States.  Before  the  cession  of  their  west¬ 
ern  claims  it  seemed  to  be  inevitable  that  some  of 
the  States  should  be  broken  up  into  several  units. 
At  the  very  time  that  the  formation  of  the  Confed¬ 
eration  was  under  discussion  Vermont  issued  a  de¬ 
claration  of  independence  from  New  York  and  New 
Hampshire,  with  the  expectation  of  being  admitted 
into  the  Union.  It  was  impolitic  to  recognize  the 
appeal  at  that  time,  but  it  seems  to  have  been  gen¬ 
erally  understood  that  sooner  or  later  Vermont 
would  come  in  as  a  full-fledged  State. 

It  might  have  been  a  revolutionary  suggestion 
by  Maryland,  when  the  cession  of  western  lands 
was  under  discussion,  that  Congress  should  have 
sole  power  to  fix  the  western  boundaries  of  the 
States,  but  her  further  proposal  was  not  even  re¬ 
garded  as  radical,  that  Congress  should  “lay  out 
the  land  beyond  the  boundaries  so  ascertained  into 
separate  and  independent  states.”  It  seems  to 
have  been  taken  as  a  matter  of  course  in  the  proce¬ 
dure  of  Congress  and  was  accepted  by  the  States. 
But  the  idea  was  one  thing;  its  carrying  out  was 
quite  another.  Here  was  a  great  extent  of  western 
territory  which  would  be  valuable  only  as  it  could 


THE  NORTHWEST  ORDINANCE 


69 


be  sold  to  prospective  settlers.  One  of  the  first 
things  these  settlers  would  demand  was  protection 
—  protection  against  the  Indians,  possibly  also 
against  the  British  and  the  Spanish,  and  protection 
in  their  ordinary  civil  life.  The  former  was  a  de¬ 
tail  of  military  organization  and  was  in  due  time 
provided  by  the  establishment  of  military  forts 
and  garrisons;  the  latter  was  the  problem  which 
Jefferson’s  committee  was  attempting  to  solve. 

The  Ordinance  of  1784  disregarded  the  natural 
physical  features  of  the  western  country  and,  by 
degrees  of  latitude  and  meridians  of  longitude,  ar¬ 
bitrarily  divided  the  public  domain  into  rectangu¬ 
lar  districts,  to  the  first  of  which  the  following 
names  were  applied:  Syl vania,  Michigania,  Cher- 
ronesus,  Assenisipia,  Metropotamia,  Illinoia,  Sara¬ 
toga,  Washington,  Polypotamia,  Pelisipia.  The 
amusement  which  this  absurd  and  thoroughly  Jef¬ 
fersonian  nomenclature  is  bound  to  cause  ought  not 
to  detract  from  the  really  important  features  of  the 
Ordinance.  In  each  of  the  districts  into  which  the 
country  was  divided  the  settlers  might  be  author¬ 
ized  by  Congress,  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a 
temporary  government,  to  adopt  the  constitution 
and  laws  of  any  one  of  the  original  States.  When 
any  such  area  should  have  twenty  thousand  free 


70  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


inhabitants  it  might  receive  authority  from  Con¬ 
gress  to  establish  a  permanent  constitution  and 
government  and  should  be  entitled  to  a  representa¬ 
tive  in  Congress  with  the  right  of  debating  but  not 
of  voting.  And  finally,  when  the  inhabitants  of 
any  one  of  these  districts  should  equal  in  number 
those  of  the  least  populous  of  the  thirteen  original 
States,  their  delegates  should  be  admitted  into 
Congress  on  an  equal  footing. 

Jefferson’s  ordinance,  though  adopted,  was  never 
put  into  operation.  Various  explanations  have 
been  offered  for  this  failure  to  give  it  a  fair  trial. 
It  has  been  said  that  Jefferson  himself  was  to  blame. 
In  the  original  draft  of  his  ordinance  Jefferson  had 
provided  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  new 
States  after  the  year  1800,  and  when  Congress  re¬ 
fused  to  accept  this  clause  Jefferson,  in  a  manner 
quite  characteristic,  seemed  to  lose  all  interest  in 
the  plan.  There  were,  however,  other  objections, 
for  there  were  those  who  felt  that  it  was  somewhat 
indefinite  to  promise  admission  into  the  Confedera¬ 
tion  of  certain  sections  of  the  country  as  soon  as 
their  population  should  equal  in  number  that  of  the 
least  populous  of  the  original  States.  If  the  orig¬ 
inal  States  should  increase  in  population  to  any 
extent,  the  new  States  might  never  be  admitted. 


THE  NORTHWEST  ORDINANCE 


71 


But  on  the  other  hand,  if  from  any  cause  the  popu¬ 
lation  of  one  of  the  smaller  States  should  suddenly 
decrease,  might  not  the  resulting  influx  of  new 
States  prove  dangerous? 

But  the  real  reason  why  the  ordinance  remained 
a  dead  letter  was  that,  while  it  fixed  the  limits  with¬ 
in  which  local  governments  might  act,  it  left  the 
creation  of  those  governments  wholly  to  the  future. 
At  Vincennes,  for  example,  the  ordinance  made  no 
change  in  the  political  habits  of  the  people.  “The 
local  government  bowled  along  merrily  under  this 
system.  There  was  the  greatest  abundance  of 
government,  for  the  more  the  United  States  neg¬ 
lected  them  the  more  authority  their  officials  as¬ 
sumed.”1  Nor  could  the  ordinance  operate  until 
settlers  became  numerous.  It  was  partly,  indeed, 
to  hasten  settlement  that  the  Ordinance  of  1785  for 
the  survey  and  sale  of  the  public  lands  was  passed. 2 

In  the  meantime  efforts  were  being  made  by 
Congress  to  improve  the  unsatisfactory  ordinance 
for  the  government  of  the  West.  Committees  were 

1  Jacob  Piat  Dunn,  Jr.,  Indiana:  A  Redemption  from  Slavery , 
1888. 

2  Although  the  machinery  was  set  in  motion,  by  the  appoint¬ 
ment  of  men  and  the  beginning  of  work,  it  was  not  until  1789  that 
the  survey  of  the  first  seven  ranges  of  townships  was  completed 
and  the  land  offered  for  sale. 


72  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


appointed,  reports  were  made,  and  at  intervals  of 
weeks  or  months  the  subject  was  considered. 
Some  amendments  were  actually  adopted,  but 
Congress,  notoriously  inefficient,  hesitated  to  un¬ 
dertake  a  fundamental  revision  of  the  ordinance. 
Then,  suddenly,  in  July,  1787,  after  a  brief  period 
of  adjournment.  Congress  took  up  this  subject  and 
within  a  week  adopted  the  now  famous  Ordinance 
of  1787. 

The  stimulus  which  aroused  Congress  to  activity 
seems  to  have  come  from  the  Ohio  Company. 
From  the  very  beginning  of  the  public  domain 
there  was  a  strong  sentiment  in  favor  of  using  west¬ 
ern  land  for  settlement  by  Revolutionary  soldiers. 
Some  of  these  lands  had  been  offered  as  bounties  to 
encourage  enlistment,  and  after  the  war  the  project 
of  soldiers’  settlement  in  the  West  was  vigorously 
agitated.  The  Ohio  Company  of  Associates  was 
made  up  of  veterans  of  the  Revolution,  who  were 
looking  for  homes  in  the  West,  and  of  other  persons 
who  were  willing  to  support  a  worthy  cause  by  a 
subscription  which  might  turn  out  to  be  a  good  in¬ 
vestment.  The  company  wished  to  buy  land  in 
the  West,  and  Congress  had  land  which  it  wished  to 
sell.  Under  such  circumstances  it  was  easy  to 
strike  a  bargain.  The  land,  as  we  have  seen,  was 


THE  NORTHWEST  ORDINANCE 


73 


roughly  estimated  at  one  dollar  an  acre;  but,  as  the 
company  wished  to  purchase  a  million  acres,  it  de¬ 
manded  and  obtained  wholesale  rates  of  two-thirds 
of  the  usual  price.  It  also  obtained  the  privilege 

V 

of  paying  at  least  a  portion  in  certificates  of  Revo¬ 
lutionary  indebtedness,  some  of  which  were  worth 
about  twelve  and  a  half  cents  on  the  dollar.  Only 
a  little  calculation  is  required  to  show  that  a 
large  quantity  of  land  was  therefore  sold  at  about 
eight  or  nine  cents  an  acre.  It  was  in  connection 
with  this  land  sale  that  the  Ordinance  of  1787 
was  adopted. 

The  promoter  of  this  enterprise  undertaken  by 
the  Ohio  Company  was  Manasseh  Cutler  of  Ips¬ 
wich,  Massachusetts,  a  clergyman  by  profession 
who  had  served  as  a  chaplain  in  the  Revolution¬ 
ary  War.  But  his  interests  and  activities  ex¬ 
tended  far  beyond  the  bounds  of  his  profession. 
When  the  people  of  his  parish  were  without  prop¬ 
er  medical  advice  he  applied  himself  to  the  study 
and  practice  of  medicine.  At  about  the  same 
time  he  took  up  the  study  of  botany,  and  be¬ 
cause  of  his  describing  several  hundred  species  of 
plants  he  is  regarded  as  the  pioneer  botanist  of 
New  England.  His  next  interest  seems  to  have 
grown  out  of  his  Revolutionary  associations,  for  it 


74  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

centered  in  this  project  for  settlement  of  the  West, 
and  he  was  appointed  the  agent  of  the  Ohio  Com¬ 
pany.  It  was  in  this  capacity  that  he  had  come  to 
New  York  and  made  the  bargain  with  Congress 
which  has  just  been  described.  Cutler  must  have 
been  a  good  lobbyist,  for  Congress  was  not  an  effi¬ 
cient  body,  and  unremitting  labor,  as  well  as  diplo¬ 
macy,  was  required  for  so  large  and  important 
a  matter.  Two  things  indicate  his  method  of  pro¬ 
cedure.  In  the  first  place  he  found  it  politic  to 
drop  his  own  candidate  for  the  governorship  of  the 
new  territory  and  to  endorse  General  Arthur  St. 
Clair,  then  President  of  Congress.  And  in  the 
next  place  he  accepted  the  suggestion  of  Colonel 
William  Duer  for  the  formation  of  another  com¬ 
pany,  known  as  the  Scioto  Associates,  to  purchase 
five  million  acres  of  land  on  similar  terms,  “but 
that  it  should  be  kept  a  profound  secret.”  It  was 
not  an  accident  that  Colonel  Duer  was  Secretary 
of  the  Board  of  the  Treasury  through  whom  these 
purchases  were  made,  nor  that  associated  with  him 
in  this  speculation  were  “  a  number  of  the  principal 
characters  in  the  city.”  These  land  deals  were 
completed  afterwards,  but  there  is  little  doubt  that 
there  was  a  direct  connection  between  them  and 
the  adoption  of  the  ordinance  of  government. 


THE  NORTHWEST  ORDINANCE  75 

The  Ordinance  of  1787  was  so  successful  in  its 
working  and  its  renown  became  so  great  that  claims 
of  authorship,  even  for  separate  articles,  have  been 
filed  in  the  name  of  almost  every  person  who  had 
the  slightest  excuse  for  being  considered.  Thou¬ 
sands  of  pages  have  been  written  in  eulogy  and  in 
dispute,  to  the  helpful  clearing  up  of  some  points 
and  to  the  obscuring  of  others.  But  the  author¬ 
ship  of  this  or  of  that  clause  is  of  much  less  impor¬ 
tance  than  the  scope  of  the  document  as  a  working 
plan  of  government.  As  such  the  Ordinance  of 
1787  owes  much  to  Jefferson’s  Ordinance  of  1784. 
Under  the  new  ordinance  a  governor  and  three 
judges  were  to  be  appointed  who,  along  with  their 
other  functions,  were  to  select  such  laws  as  they 
thought  best  from  the  statute  books  of  all  the 
States.  The  second  stage  in  self-government 
would  be  reached  when  the  population  contained 
five  thousand  free  men  of  age;  then  the  people  were 
to  have  a  representative  legislature  with  the  usual 
privilege  of  making  their  own  laws.  Provision  was 
made  for  dividing  the  whole  region  northwest  of 
the  Ohio  River  into  three  or  four  or  five  districts 
and  the  final  stage  of  government  was  reached 
when  any  one  of  these  districts  had  sixty  thousand 
free  inhabitants,  for  it  might  then  establish  its 


76  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


own  constitution  and  government  and  be  admit¬ 
ted  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the 
original  States. 

The  last-named  provision  for  admission  into  the 
Union,  being  in  the  nature  of  a  promise  for  the  fu¬ 
ture,  was  not  included  in  the  body  of  the  document 
providing  for  the  government,  but  was  contained 
in  certain  “articles  of  compact,  between  the  orig¬ 
inal  States  and  the  people  and  States  in  the  said 
territory,  [which  should]  forever  remain  unalter¬ 
able,  unless  by  common  consent.”  These  articles 
of  compact  were  in  general  similar  to  the  bills  of 
rights  in  State  Constitutions;  but  one  of  them 
found  no  parallel  in  any  State  Constitution.  Ar¬ 
ticle  VI  reads:  “There  shall  be  neither  slavery 
nor  involuntary  servitude  in  the  said  territory, 
otherwise  than  in  the  punishment  of  crimes,  where¬ 
of  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted.”  This 
has  been  hailed  as  a  farsighted,  humanitarian  meas¬ 
ure,  and  it  is  quite  true  that  many  of  the  leading 
men,  in  the  South  as  well  as  in  the  North,  were 
looking  forward  to  the  time  when  slavery  would 
be  abolished.  But  the  motives  predominating  at 
the  time  were  probably  more  nearly  represented 
by  Grayson,  who  wrote  to  James  Monroe,  three 
weeks  after  the  ordinance  was  passed:  “The 


THE  NORTHWEST  ORDINANCE 


77 


clause  respecting  slavery  was  agreed  to  by  the 
southern  members  for  the  purpose  of  preventing 
tobacco  and  indigo  from  being  made  on  the  north¬ 
west  side  of  the  Ohio,  as  well  as  for  several  other 
political  reasons.” 

ft*' 

It  is  over  one  hundred  and  forty  years  since 
the  Ordinance  of  1787  was  adopted,  during  which 
period  more  than  thirty  territories  of  the  United 
States  have  been  organized,  and  there  has  never 
been  a  time  when  one  or  more  territories  were  not 
under  Congressional  supervision,  so  that  the  proc¬ 
ess  of  legislative  control  has  been  continuous. 
Changes  have  been  made  from  time  to  time  in  or¬ 
der  to  adapt  the  territorial  government  to  changed 
conditions,  but  for  fifty  years  the  Ordinance  of 
1787  actually  remained  in  operation,  and  even 
twenty  years  later  it  was  specifically  referred  to  by 
statute.  The  principles  of  territorial  government 
today  are  identical  with  those  of  1787,  and  those 
principles  comprise  the  largest  measure  of  local 
self-government  compatible  with  national  control, 
a  gradual  extension  of  self-government  to  the 
people  of  a  territory,  and  finally  complete  state¬ 
hood  and  admission  into  the  Union  on  a  footing  of 
equality  with  the  other  States. 

In  1825,  when  the  military  occupation  of  Oregon 


78  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


was  suggested  in  Congress,  Senator  Dickerson 
of  New  Jersey  objected,  saying,  “We  have  not 
adopted  a  system  of  colonization  and  it  is  to  be 
hoped  we  never  shall.”  Yet  that  is  just  what 
America  has  always  had.  Not  only  were  the 
first  settlers  on  the  Atlantic  coast  colonists  from 
Europe;  but  the  men  who  went  to  the  frontier  were 
also  colonists  from  the  Atlantic  seaboard.  And 
the  men  who  settled  the  States  in  the  West  were 
colonists  from  the  older  communities.  The  Amer¬ 
icans  had  so  recently  asserted  their  independence 
that  they  regarded  the  name  of  colony  as  not 
merely  indicating  dependence  but  as  implying 
something  of  inferiority  and  even  of  reproach. 
And  when  the  American  colonial  system  was  being 
formulated  in  1783-87  the  word  “Colony”  was  not 
used.  The  country  under  consideration  was  the 
region  west  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains  and  in 
particular  the  territory  north  and  west  of  the  Ohio 
River  and,  being  so  referred  to  in  the  documents, 
the  word  “Territory”  became  the  term  applied  to 

all  the  colonies. 

/ 

/ _ 

The  Northwest  Territory  increased  so  rapidly  in 
population  that  in  1800  it  was  divided  into  twTo 
districts,  and  in  1802  the  eastern  part  was  admitted 
into  the  Union  as  the  State  of  Ohio.  The  rest  of 


THE  NORTHWEST  ORDINANCE 


79 


the  territory  was  divided  in  1805  and  again  in  1809; 
Indiana  was  admitted  as  a  State  in  1816  and  Illi¬ 
nois  in  1818.  So  the  process  has  gone  on.  There 
were  thirteen  original  States  and  six  more  have  be¬ 
come  members  of  the  Union  without  having  been 
through  the  status  of  territories,  making  nineteen 
in  all;  while  twenty-nine  States  have  developed 
from  the  colonial  stage.  The  incorporation  of  the 
colonies  into  the  Union  is  not  merely  a  political 
fact;  the  inhabitants  of  the  colonies  become  an 
integral  part  of  the  parent  nation  and  in  turn  be¬ 
come  the  progenitors  of  new  colonies.  If  such  a 
process  be  long  continued,  the  colonies  will  eventu¬ 
ally  outnumber  the  parent  States,  and  the  colonists 
will  outnumber  the  citizens  of  the  original  States 
and  will  themselves  become  the  nation.  Such  has 
been  the  history  of  the  United  States  and  its  people. 
By  1850,  indeed,  one-half  of  the  population  of  the 
United  States  was  living  west  of  the  Alleghany 
Mountains,  and  at  the  present  time  approximately 
seventy  per  cent  are  to  be  found  in  the  West. 

The  importance  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787  was 
hardly  overstated  by  Webster  in  his  famous  debate 
with  Hayne  when  he  said:  “We  are  accustomed 
...  to  praise  the  lawgivers  of  antiquity;  we  help 
to  perpetuate  the  fame  of  Solon  and  Lycurgus; 


80  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


but  I  doubt  whether  one  single  law  of  any  law¬ 
giver,  ancient  or  modern,  has  produced  effects 
of  more  distinct,  marked  and  lasting  character 
than  the  Ordinance  of  1787/’  While  improved 
means  of  communication  and  many  other  material 
ties  have  served  to  hold  the  States  of  the  Union  to¬ 
gether,  the  political  bond  was  supplied  by  the 
Ordinance  of  1787,  which  inaugurated  the  American 
colonial  system. 


CHAPTER  V 


DARKNESS  BEFORE  DAWN 

John  Fiske  summed  up  the  prevailing  impression 
of  the  government  of  the  Confederation  in  the  title 
to  his  volume,  The  Critical  Period  of  American 
History.  “The  period  of  five  years,”  says  Fiske, 
“following  the  peace  of  178S  was  the  most  critical 
moment  in  all  the  history  of  the  American  people. 
The  dangers  from  which  we  were  saved  in  1788 
were  even  greater  than  were  the  dangers  from 
which  we  were  saved  in  1865.”  Perhaps  the  plight 
of  the  Confederation  was  not  so  desperate  as  he 
would  have  us  believe,  but  it  was  desperate  enough. 
Two  incidents  occurring  between  the  signing  of  the 
preliminary  terms  of  peace  and  the  definitive  treaty 
reveal  the  danger  in  which  the  country  stood.  JThe 
main  body  of  continental  troops  made  up  of  mili¬ 
tiamen  and  short-term  volunteers  —  always  prone 
to  mutinous  conduct  —  was  collected  at  Newburg 

on  the  Hudson,  watching  the  British  in  New  York. 

6  81 


82  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


Word  might  come  at  any  day  that  the  treaty  had 
been  signed,  and  the  army  did  not  wish  to  be  dis¬ 
banded  until  certain  matters  had  been  settled  — 
primarily  the  question  of  their  pay.  The  officers 
had  been  promised  half -pay  for  life,  but  nothing  defi¬ 
nite  had  been  done  toward  carrying  out  the  prom¬ 
ise.  The  soldiers  had  no  such  hope  to  encourage 
them,  and  their  pay  was  sadly  in  arrears.  In  De¬ 
cember,  1782,  the  officers  at  Newburg  drew  up  an 
address  in  behalf  of  themselves  and  their  men  and 
sent  it  to  Congress.  Therein  they  made  the  threat, 
thinly  veiled,  of  taking  matters  into  their  own  hands 
unless  their  grievances  were  redressed. 

There  is  reason  to  suppose  that  back  of  this 
movement  —  or  at  least  in  sympathy  with  it  — 
were  some  of  the  strongest  men  in  civil  as  in  mili¬ 
tary  life,  who,  while  not  fomenting  insurrection, 
were  willing  to  bring  pressure  to  bear  on  Congress 
and  the  States.  Congress  was  unable  or  unwilling 

i  1 1 — «. 

to  act,  and  in  March,  1783,  a  second  paper,  this 
time  anonymous,  was  circulated  urging  the  men 
not  to  disband  until  the  question  of  pay  had  been 
settled  and  recommending  a  meeting  of  officers  on 
the  following  day.  If  Washington’s  influence  was 
not  counted  upon,  it  was  at  least  hoped  that  he 
would  not  interfere;  but  as  soon  as  he  learned  of 


DARKNESS  BEFORE  DAWN 


83 


what  had  been  done  he  issued  general  orders  calling 
for  a  meeting  of  officers  on  a  later  day,  thus  super¬ 
seding  the  irregular  meeting  that  had  been  sug¬ 
gested.  On  the  day  appointed  the  Commander- 
in-Chief  appeared  and  spoke  with  so  much  warmth 
and  feeling  that  his  “little  address  .  .  .  drew 
tears  from  many  of  the  officers.”  He  inveighed 
against  the  unsigned  paper  and  against  the  meth¬ 
ods  that  were  talked  of,  for  they  would  mean  the 
disgrace  of  the  army,  and  he  appealed  to  the  patri¬ 
otism  of  the  officers,  promising  his  best  efforts  in 
their  behalf.  The  effect  was  so  strong  that,  when 
Washington  withdrew,  resolutions  were  adopted 
unanimously  expressing  their  loyalty  and  their 
faith  in  the  justice  of  Congress  and  denouncing  the 
anonymous  circular. 

The  general  apprehension  was  not  diminished 
by  another  incident  in  June.  Some  eighty  troops 
of  the  Pennsylvania  line  in  camp  at  Lancaster 
marched  to  Philadelphia  and  drew  up  before  the 
State  House,  where  Congress  was  sitting.  Their 
purpose  was  to  demand  better  treatment  and  the 
payment  of  what  was  owed  to  them.  So  far  it 
was  an  orderly  demonstration,  although  not  in 
keeping  with  military  regulations;  in  fact  the  men 
had  broken  away  from  camp  under  the  lead  of 


84  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


noncommissioned  officers.  But  when  they  had  been 
stimulated  by  drink  the  disorder  became  serious. 
The  humiliating  feature  of  the  situation  was  that 
Congress  could  do  nothing,  even  in  self -protection. 
They  appealed  to  the  Pennsylvania  authorities 
and,  when  assistance  was  refused,  the  members  of 
Congress  in  alarm  fled  in  the  night  and  three  days 
later  gathered  in  the  college  building  in  Princeton. 

Congress  became  the  butt  of  many  jokes,  but 
men  could  not  hide  the  chagrin  they  felt  that  their 
Government  was  so  weak.  The  feeling  deep¬ 
ened  into  shame  when  the  helplessness  of  Congress 
was  displayed  before  the  world.  Weeks  and  even 
months  passed  before  a  quorum  could  be  obtained 
to  ratify  the  treaty  recognizing  the  independence 
of  the  United  States  and  establishing  peace.  Even 
after  the  treaty  was  supposed  to  be  in  force  the 
States  disregarded  its  provisions  and  Congress 
could  do  nothing  more  than  utter  ineffective  pro¬ 
tests.  But,  most  humiliating  of  all,  the  British 
maintained  their  military  posts  within  the  north¬ 
western  territory  ceded  to  the  United  States,  and 
Congress  could  only  request  them  to  retire.  The 
Americans’  pride  was  hurt  and  their  pockets  were 
touched  as  well,  for  an  important  issue  at  stake  was 
the  control  of  the  lucrative  fur  trade.  So  resentment 


DARKNESS  BEFORE  DAWN 


85 


grew  into  anger;  but  the  British  held  on,  and  the 
United  States  was  powerless  to  make  them  with¬ 
draw.  To  make  matters  worse,  the  Confederation, 
for  want  of  power  to  levy  taxes,  was  facing  bank¬ 
ruptcy,  and  Congress  was  unable  to  devise  ways 
and  means  to  avert  a  crisis. 

The  Second  Continental  Congress  had  come  into 
existence  in  1775.  It  was  made  up  of  delegations 
from  the  various  colonies,  appointed  in  more  or  less 
irregular  ways,  and  had  no  more  authority  than  it 
might  assume  and  the  various  colonies  were  willing 
to  concede;  yet  it  was  the  central  body  under  which 
the  Revolution  had  been  inaugurated  and  carried 
through  to  a  successful  conclusion.  Had  this  Con¬ 
gress  grappled  firmly  with  the  financial  problem 
and  forced  through  a  system  of  direct  taxation,  the 
subsequent  woes  of  the  Confederation  might  have 
been  mitigated  and  perhaps  averted.  In  their  en¬ 
thusiasm  over  the  Declaration  of  Independence  the 
people  —  by  whom  is  meant  the  articulate  class 
consisting  largely  of  the  governing  and  commercial 
elements  —  would  probably  have  accepted  such  a 
usurpation  of  authority.  But  with  their  lack  of  ex¬ 
perience  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  delegates  to 
Congress  did  not  appreciate  the  necessity  of  such 
radical  action  and  so  were  unwilling  to  take  the 


86  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


responsibility  for  it.  They  counted  upon  the  good¬ 
will  and  support  of  their  constituents,  which  sim¬ 
mered  down  to  a  reliance  upon  voluntary  grants 
from  the  States  in  response  to  appeals  from  Con¬ 
gress.  These  desultory  grants  proved  to  be  so  un¬ 
satisfactory  that,  in  1781,  even  before  the  Articles 
of  Confederation  had  been  ratified,  Congress  asked 
for  a  grant  of  additional  power  to  levy  a  duty  of 
five  per  cent  ad  valorem  upon  all  goods  imported 
into  the  United  States,  the  revenue  from  which 
was  to  be  applied  to  the  discharge  of  the  principal 
and  interest  on  debts  “contracted  .  .  .  for  sup¬ 
porting  the  present  war.”  Twelve  States  agreed, 
but  Rhode  Island,'  after  some  hesitation,  finally 
rejected  the  measure  in  November,  1782. 

The  Articles  of  Confederation  authorized  a  sys¬ 
tem  of  requisitions  apportioned  among  the  “several 
States  in  proportion  to  the  value  of  all  land  within 
each  State.”  But,  as  there  was  no  power  vested  in 
Congress  to  force  the  States  to  comply,  the  situa¬ 
tion  was  in  no  way  improved  when  the  Articles  were 
ratified  and  put  into  operation.  In  fact,  matters 
grew  worse  as  Congress  itself  steadily  lost  ground 
in  popular  estimation,  until  it  had  become  little 
better  than  a  laughing-stock,  and  with  the  ending 
of  the  war  its  requests  were  more  honored  in  the 


DARKNESS  BEFORE  DAWN 


87 


breach  than  in  the  observance.  In  1782  Congress 
asked  for  $8,000,000  and  the  following  year  for  $2,- 
000,000  more,  but  by  the  end  of  1783  less  than 
$1,500,000  had  been  paid  in. 

In  the  same  year,  1783,  Congress  made  another 
attempt  to  remedy  the  financial  situation  by  pro¬ 
posing  the  so-called  Revenue  Amendment,  accord¬ 
ing  to  which  a  specific  duty  was  to  be  laid  upon 
certain  articles  and  a  general  duty  of  five  per  cent 
ad  valorem  upon  all  other  goods,  to  be  in  operation 
for  twenty-five  years.  In  addition  to  this  it  was 
proposed  that  for  the  same  period  of  time  $1,500,- 
000  annually  should  be  raised  by  requisitions,  and 
the  definite  amount  for  each  State  was  specified  un¬ 
til  “the  rule  of  the  Confederation”  could  be  carried 
into  practice.  It  was  then  proposed  that  the  ar¬ 
ticle  providing  for  the  proportion  of  requisitions 
should  be  changed  so  as  to  be  based  not  upon  land 
values  but  upon  population,  in  estimating  which 
slaves  should  be  counted  at  three-fifths  of  their 
number.  In  the  course  of  three  years  thereafter 
only  two  States  accepted  the  proposals  in  full, 
seven  agreed  to  them  in  part,  and  four  failed  to  act 
at  all.  Congress  in  despair  then  made  a  further 
representation  to  the  States  upon  the  critical  con¬ 
dition  of  the  finances  and  accompanied  this  with 


88  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


an  urgent  appeal,  which  resulted  in  all  the  States 
except  New  York  agreeing  to  the  proposed  impost. 
But  the  refusal  of  one  State  was  sufficient  to  block 
the  whole  measure,  and  there  was  no  further  hope 
for  a  treasury  that  was  practically  bankrupt.  In 
five  years  Congress  had  received  less  than  two  and 
one-half  million  dollars  from  requisitions,  and  for 
the  fourteen  months  ending  January  1,  1786,  the 
income  was  at  the  rate  of  less  than  $375,000  a  year, 
which  was  not  enough,  as  a  committee  of  Congress 
reported,  “for  the  bare  maintenance  of  the  Federal 
Government  on  the  most  economical  establishment 
and  in  time  of  profound  peace.”  In  fact,  the  in¬ 
come  was  not  sufficient  even  to  meet  the  interest 
on  the  foreign  debt. 

In  the  absence  of  other  means  of  obtaining  funds 
Congress  had  resorted  early  to  the  unfortunate  ex¬ 
pedient  of  issuing  paper  money  based  solely  on  the 
good  faith  of  the  States  to  redeem  it.  This  fiat 
money  held  its  value  for  some  little  time;  then  it 
began  to  shrink  and,  once  started  on  the  downward 
path,  its  fall  was  rapid.  Congress  tried  to  meet 
the  emergency  by  issuing  paper  in  increasing  quan¬ 
tities  until  the  inevitable  happened:  the  paper 
money  ceased  to  have  any  value  and  practically 
disappeared  from  circulation.  Jefferson  said  that 


DARKNESS  BEFORE  DAWN 


89 


by  the  end  of  1781  one  thousand  dollars  of  Conti¬ 
nental  scrip  was  worth  about  one  dollar  in  specie. 

The  States  had  already  issued  paper  money  of 
their  own,  and  their  experience  ought  to  have 
taught  them  a  lesson,  but  with  the  coming  of  hard 
times  after  the  war,  they  once  more  proposed  by 
issuing  paper  to  relieve  the  '‘scarcity  of  money” 
which  was  commonly  supposed  to  be  one  of  the 
principal  evils  of  the  day.  In  1785  and  1786  paper 
money  parties  appeared  in  almost  all  the  States. 
In  some  of  these  the  conservative  element  was 
strong  enough  to  prevent  action,  but  in  others  the 
movement  had  to  run  its  fatal  course.  The  futility 
of  what  they  were  doing  should  have  been  revealed 
to  all  concerned  by  proposals  seriously  made  that 
the  paper  money  which  was  issued  should  depre¬ 
ciate  at  a  regular  rate  each  year  until  it  should 
finally  disappear. 

The  experience  of  Rhode  Island  is  not  to  be  re¬ 
garded  as  typical  of  what  was  happening  through¬ 
out  the  country  but  is,  indeed,  rather  to  be  con¬ 
sidered  as  exceptional.  Yet  it  attracted  wide¬ 
spread  attention  and  revealed  to  anxious  observers 
the  dangers  to  which  the  country  was  subject  if  the 
existing  condition  of  affairs  were  allowed  to  con¬ 
tinue.  The  machinery  of  the  State  Government 

1 


90  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


was  captured  by  the  paper-money  party  in  the 
spring  election  of  1786.  The  results  were  disap¬ 
pointing  to  the  adherents  of  the  paper-money  cause, 
for  when  the  money  was  issued  depreciation  began 
at  once,  and  those  who  tried  to  pay  their  bills  dis¬ 
covered  that  a  heavy  discount  was  demanded. 
In  response  to  indignant  demands  the  legislature 
of  Rhode  Island  passed  an  act  to  force  the  accept¬ 
ance  of  paper  money  under  penalty  and  thereupon 
tradesmen  refused  to  make  any  sales  at  all  —  some 
closed  their  shops,  and  others  tried  to  carry  on  busi¬ 
ness  by  exchange  of  wares.  The  farmers  then  re¬ 
taliated  by  refusing  to  sell  their  produce  to  the 
shopkeepers,  and  general  confusion  and  acute  dis¬ 
tress  followed.  It  was  mainly  a  quarrel  between 
the  farmers  and  the  merchants,  but  it  easily  grew 
into  a  division  between  town  and  country,  and 
there  followed  a  whole  series  of  town  meetings  and 
county  conventions.  The  old  line  of  cleavage  was 
fairly  well  represented  by  the  excommunication  of 
a  member  of  St.  John’s  Episcopal  Church  of  Provi¬ 
dence  for  tendering  bank  notes,  and  the  expulsion 
of  a  member  of  the  Society  of  the  Cincinnati  for  a 
similar  cause. 

The  contest  culminated  in  the  case  of  Trevett  vs. 
Weeden,  1786,  which  is  memorable  in  the  judicial 


DARKNESS  BEFORE  DAWN 


91 


annals  of  the  United  States.  The  legislature, 
not  being  satisfied  with  ordinary  methods  of  en¬ 
forcement,  had  provided  for  the  summary  trial 
of  offenders  without  a  jury  before  a  court  whose 
judges  wTere  removable  by  the  Assembly  and  were 
therefore  supposedly  subservient  to  its  wishes.  In 
the  case  in  question  the  Superior  Court  boldly  de¬ 
clared  the  enforcing  act  to  be  unconstitutional,  and 
for  their  contumacious  behavior  the  judges  were 
summoned  before  the  legislature.  They  escaped 
punishment,  but  only  one  of  them  was  reelected 
to  office. 

Meanwhile  disorders  of  a  more  serious  sort, 
which  startled  the  whole  country,  occurred  in 
Massachusetts.  It  is  doubtful  if  a  satisfactory  ex¬ 
planation  ever  'will  be  found,  at  least  one  which  will 
be  universally  accepted,  as  to  the  causes  and  origin 
of  Shays’  Rebellion  in  1786.  Some  historians 
maintain  that  the  uprising  resulted  primarily  from 
a  scarcity  of  money,  from  a  shortage  in  the  circu¬ 
lating  medium  T  that,  while  the  eastern  counties 
were  keeping  up  their  foreign  trade  sufficiently  at 
least  to  bring  in  enough  metallic  currency  to  relieve 
the  stringency  and  could  also  use  various  forms  of 
credit,  the  western  counties  had  no  such  remedy. 
Others  are  inclined  to  think  that  the  difficulties  of 


92  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

the  farmers  in  western  Massachusetts  were  caused 
largely  by  the  return  to  normal  conditions  after  the 
extraordinarily  good  times  between  1776  and  1780, 
and  that  it  was  the  discomfort  attending  the  proc¬ 
ess  that  drove  them  to  revolt.  Another  explana¬ 
tion  reminds  one  of  present-day  charges  against  un¬ 
due  influence  of  high  financial  circles,  when  it  is  in¬ 
sinuated  and  even  directly  charged  that  the  rebel¬ 
lion  was  fostered  by  conservative  interests  who 
were  trying  to  create  a  public  opinion  in  favor  of  a 
more  strongly  organized  government. 

Whatever  other  causes  there  may  have  been,  the 
immediate  source  of  trouble  was  the  enforced  pay¬ 
ment  of  indebtedness,  which  to  a  large  extent  had 
been  allowed  to  remain  in  abeyance  during  the  war. 
This  postponement  of  settlement  had  not  been 
merely  for  humanitarian  reasons;  it  would  have 
been  the  height  of  folly  to  collect  when  the  currency 
was  greatly  depreciated.  But  conditions  were  sup¬ 
posed  to  have  been  restored  to  normal  with  the 
cessation  of  hostilities,  and  creditors  were  generally 
inclined  to  demand  payment.  These  demands,  co¬ 
inciding  with  the  heavy  taxes,  drove  the  people 
of  western  Massachusetts  into  revolt.  Feeling 
ran  high  against  lawyers  who  prosecuted  suits  for 
creditors,  and  this  antagonism  was  easily  transferred 


DARKNESS  BEFORE  DAWN 


93 


to  the  courts  in  which  the  suits  were  brought. 
The  rebellion  in  Massachusetts  accordingly  took 
the  form  of  a  demonstration  against  the  courts. 
A  paper  was  carried  from  town  to  town  in  the 
County  of  Worcester,  in  which  the  signers  promised 
to  do  their  utmost  “to  prevent  the  sitting  of  the 
Inferior  Court  of  Common  Pleas  for  the  county,  or 
of  any  other  court  that  should  attempt  to  take 
property  by  distress.” 

The  Massachusetts  Legislature  adjourned  in 
July,  1786,  without  remedying  the  trouble  and  also 
without  authorizing  an  issue  of  paper  money  which 
the  hard-pressed  debtors  were  demanding.  In  the 
months  following  mobs  prevented  the  courts  from 
sitting  in  various  towns.  A  special  session  of  the 
legislature  was  then  called  by  the  Governor  but, 
when  that  special  session  had  adjourned  on  the 
18th  of  November,  it  might  just  as  well  have  never 
met.  It  had  attempted  to  remedy  various  griev¬ 
ances  and  had  made  concessions  to  the  malcontents, 
but  it  had  also  passed  measures  to  strengthen  the 
hands  of  the  Governor.  This  only  seemed  to  in¬ 
flame  the  rioters,  and  the  disorders  increased. 
After  the  lower  courts  a  move  was  made  against 
the  State  Supreme  Court,  and  plans  were  laid  for  a 
i  concerted  movement  against  the  cities  in  the  eastern 


94  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


part  of  the  State.  Civil  war  seemed  imminent. 
The  insurgents  were  led  by  Daniel  Shays,  an  officer 
in  the  army  of  the  Revolution,  and  the  party  of  law 
and  order  was  represented  by  Governor  James 
Bowdoin,  who  raised  some  four  thousand  troops 
and  placed  them  under  the  command  of  General 
Benjamin  Lincoln. 

The  time  of  year  was  unfortunate  for  the  in¬ 
surgents,  especially  as  December  was  unusually 
cold  and  there  was  a  heavy  snowfall.  Shays  could 
not  provide  stores  and  equipment  and  was  unable 
to  maintain  discipline.  A  threatened  attack  on 
Cambridge  came  to  naught  for,  when  preparations 
were  made  to  protect  the  city,  the  rebels  began  a 
disorderly  retreat,  and  in  the  intense  cold  and  deep 
snow  they  suffered  severely,  and  many  died  from 
exposure.  The  center  of  interest  then  shifted  to 
Springfield,  where  the  insurgents  were  attempting 
to  seize  the  United  States  arsenal.  The  local  mil¬ 
itia  had  already  repelled  the  first  attacks,  and  the 
appearance  of  General  Lincoln  with  his  troops  com¬ 
pleted  the  demoralization  of  Shays’  army.  The  in¬ 
surgents  retreated,  but  Lincoln  pursued  relentlessly 
and  broke  them  up  into  small  bands,  which  then 
wandered  about  the  country  preying  upon  the  un¬ 
fortunate  inhabitants.  When  spring  came,  most 


DARKNESS  BEFORE  DAWN 


95 


of  them  had  been  subdued  or  had  taken  refuge  in 
the  neighboring  States. 

Shays’  Rebellion  was  fairly  easily  suppressed, 
even  though  it  required  the  shedding  of  some  blood. 
But  it  was  the  possibility  of  further  outbreaks  that 
destroyed  men’s  peace  of  mind.  There  were  sim¬ 
ilar  disturbances  in  other  States;  and  there  the 
Massachusetts  insurgents  found  sympathy,  sup¬ 
port,  and  finally  a  refuge.  When  the  worst  was 
over,  and  Governor  Bowdoin  applied  to  the  neigh¬ 
boring  States  for  help  in  capturing  the  last  of  the 
refugees,  Rhode  Island  and  Vermont  failed  to  re¬ 
spond  to  the  extent  that  might  have  been  expected 
of  them.  The  danger,  therefore,  of  the  insurrec¬ 
tion  spreading  was  a  cause  of  deep  concern.  This 
feeling  was  increased  by  the  impotence  of  Congress. 
The  Government  had  sufficient  excuse  for  inter¬ 
vention  after  the  attack  upon  the  national  arsenal 
in  Springfield.  Congress,  indeed,  began  to  raise 
troops  but  did  not  dare  to  admit  its  purpose  and 
offered  as  a  pretext  an  expedition  against  the 
Northwestern  Indians.  The  rebellion  was  over  be¬ 
fore  any  assistance  could  be  given.  The  ineffi¬ 
ciency  of  Congress  and  its  lack  of  influence  were 
evident.  Like  the  disorders  in  Rhode  Island, 
Shays’  Rebellion  in  Massachusetts  helped  to  bring 


96  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


about  a  reaction  and  strengthened  the  conservative 
movement  for  reform. 

These  untoward  happenings,  however,  were  only 
symptoms :  the  causes  of  the  trouble  lay  far  deeper. 
This  fact  was  recognized  even  in  Rhode  Island,  for 
at  least  one  of  the  conventions  had  passed  resolu¬ 
tions  declaring  that,  in  considering  the  condition  of 
the  whole  country,  what  particularly  concerned 
them  was  the  condition  of  trade.  Paradoxical  as  it 
may  seem,  the  trade  and  commerce  of  the  country 
were  already  on  the  upward  grade  and  prosperity 
was  actually  returning.  But  prosperity  is  usually  a 
process  of  slow  growth  and  is  seldom  recognized  by 
the  community  at  large  until  it  is  well  established. 
Farsighted  men  forecast  the  coming  of  good  times 
in  advance  of  the  rest  of  the  community,  and  pros¬ 
per  accordingly.  The  majority  of  the  people  know 
that  prosperity  has  come  only  when  it  is  unmistak¬ 
ably  present,  and  some  are  not  aware  of  it  until  it 
has  begun  to  go.  If  that  be  true  in  our  day,  much 
more  was  it  true  in  the  eighteenth  century,  when 
means  of  communication  were  so  poor  that  it  took 
days  for  a  message  to  go  from  Boston  to  New  York 
and  weeks  for  news  to  get  from  Boston  to  Charles¬ 
ton.  It  was  a  period  of  adjustment,  and  as  we  look  I 
back  after  the  event  we  can  see  that  the  American 


DARKNESS  BEFORE  DAWN 


97 


people  were  adapting  themselves  with  remarkable 
skill  to  the  new  conditions.  But  that  was  not  so 
evident  to  the  men  who  were  feeling  the  pinch  of 
hard  times,  and  when  all  the  attendant  circum¬ 
stances,  some  of  which  have  been  described,  are 
taken  into  account,  it  is  not  surprising  that  commer¬ 
cial  depression  should  be  one  of  the  strongest  influ¬ 
ences  in,  and  the  immediate  occasion  of,  bringing 
men  to  the  point  of  willingness  to  attempt  some 
radical  changes. 

The  fact  needs  to  be  reiterated  that  the  people 
of  the  United  States  were  largely  dependent  upon 
agriculture  and  other  forms  of  extractive  indus¬ 
try,  and  that  markets  for  the  disposal  of  their 
goods  were  an  absolute  necessity.  Some  of  the 
States,  especially  New  England  and  the  Middle 
States,  were  interested  in  the  carrying  trade,  but 
all  were  concerned  in  obtaining  markets.  On  ac¬ 
count  of  jealousy  interstate  trade  continued  a  pre¬ 
carious  existence  and  by  no  means  sufficed  to  dis¬ 
pose  of  the  surplus  products,  so  that  foreign  mar¬ 
kets  were  necessary.  The  people  were  especially 
concerned  for  the  establishment  of  the  old  trade 
with  the  West  India  Islands,  which  had  been  the 
mainstay  of  their  prosperity  in  colonial  times;  and 
after  the  British  Government,  in  1783,  restricted 


98  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

% 

I 

that  trade  to  British  vessels,  many  people  in  the 
United  States  were  attributing  hard  times  to  Brit¬ 
ish  malignancy.  The  only  action  which  seemed 
possible  was  to  force  Great  Britain  in  particular, 
but  other  foreign  countries  as  well,  to  make  such 
trade  agreements  as  the  prosperity  of  the  United 
States  demanded.  The  only  hope  seemed  to  lie  in 
a  commercial  policy  of  reprisal  which  would  force 
other  countries  to  open  their  markets  to  American 
goods.  Retaliation  was  the  dominating  idea  in  the 
foreign  policy  of  the  time.  So  in  1784  Congress 
made  a  new  recommendation  to  the  States,  prefac¬ 
ing  it  with  an  assertion  of  the  importance  of  com¬ 
merce,  saying:  “The  fortune  of  every  Citizen  is  in¬ 
terested  in  the  success  thereof ;  for  it  is  the  constant 
source  of  wealth  and  incentive  to  industry;  and  the 
value  of  our  produce  and  our  land  must  ever  rise  or 
fall  in  proportion  to  the  prosperous  or  adverse  state 
of  trade.” 

And  after  declaring  that  Great  Britain  had 
“adopted  regulations  destructive  of  our  commerce 
with  her  West  India  Islands,”  it  was  further  as¬ 
serted:  “Unless  the  United  States  in  Congress  as¬ 
sembled  shall  be  vested  with  powers  competent  to 
the  protection  of  commerce,  they  can  never  com¬ 
mand  reciprocal  advantages  in  trade.”  It  was 


DARKNESS  BEFORE  DAWN 


99 


therefore  proposed  to  give  to  Congress  for  fifteen 
years  the  power  to  prohibit  the  importation  or  ex¬ 
portation  of  goods  at  American  ports  except  in 
vessels  owned  by  the  people  of  the  United  States 
or  by  the  subjects  of  foreign  governments  having 
treaties  of  commerce  with  the  United  States.  This 
was  simply  a  request  for  authorization  to  adopt 
navigation  acts.  But  the  individual  States  were 
too  much  concerned  with  their  own  interests  and 
did  not  or  would  not  appreciate  the  rights  of  the 
other  States  or  the  interests  of  the  Union  as  a 
whole.  And  so  the  commercial  amendment  of 
1784  suffered  the  fate  of  all  other  amendments  pro¬ 
posed  to  the  Articles  of  Confederation.  In  fact 
only  two  States  accepted  it. 

It  usually  happens  that  some  minor  occurrence, 
almost  unnoticed  at  the  time,  leads  directly  to  the 
most  important  consequences.  And  an  incident 
in  domestic  affairs  started  the  chain  of  events  in  the 
United  States  that  ended  in  the  reform  of  the  Fed¬ 
eral  Government.  The  rivalry  and  jealousy  among 
the  States  had  brought  matters  to  such  a  pass  that 
either  Congress  must  be  vested  with  adequate 
powers  or  the  Confederation  must  collapse.  But 
the  Articles  of  Confederation  provided  no  remedy, 
and  it  had  been  found  that  amendments  to  that 


100  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

instrument  could  not  be  obtained.  It  was  neces¬ 
sary,  therefore,  to  proceed  in  some  extra-legal  fash¬ 
ion.  The  Articles  of  Confederation  specifically  for¬ 
bade  treaties  or  alliances  between  the  States  unless 
approved  by  Congress.  Yet  Virginia  and  Maryland, 
in  1785,  had  come  to  a  working  agreement  regard¬ 
ing  the  use  of  the  Potomac  River,  which  was  the 
boundary  line  between  them.  Commissioners  rep¬ 
resenting  both  parties  had  met  at  Alexandria  and 
soon  adjourned  to  Mount  Vernon,  where  they  not 
only  reached  an  amicable  settlement  of  the  imme¬ 
diate  questions  before  them  but  also  discussed  the 
larger  subjects  of  duties  and  commercial  matters  in 
general.  When  the  Maryland  legislature  came  to 
act  on  the  report,  it  proposed  that  Pennsylvania 
and  Delaware  should  be  invited  to  join  with 
them  in  formulating  a  common  commercial  policy. 
Virginia  then  went  one  step  farther  and  invited 
all  the  other  States  to  send  commissioners  to  a 
general  trade  convention  and  later  announced 
Annapolis  as  the  place  of  meeting  and  set  the  time 
for  September,  1786. 

This  action  was  unconstitutional  and  was  so 
recognized,  for  James  Madison  notes  that  “from 
the  Legislative  Journals  of  Virginia  it  appears, 
that  a  vote  to  apply  for  a  sanction  of  Congress  was 


DARKNESS  BEFORE  DAWN 


101 


followed  by  a  vote  against  a  communication  of  the 
Compact  to  Congress,”  and  he  mentions  other  sim¬ 
ilar  violations  of  the  central  authority.  That  this 
did  not  attract  more  attention  was  probably  due  to 
the  public  interest  being  absorbed  just  at  that 
time  by  the  paper  money  agitation.  Then,  too, 
the  men  concerned  seem  to  have  been  willing  to 
avoid  publicity.  Their  purposes  are  well  brought 
out  in  a  letter  of  Monsieur  Louis  Otto,  French 
Charge  d’ Affaires,  written  on  October  10,  1786,  to 
the  Comte  de  Vergennes,  Minister  for  Foreign 
Affairs,  though  their  motives  may  be  somewhat 
misinterpreted. 

Although  there  are  no  nobles  in  America,  there  is  a 
class  of  men  denominated  “gentlemen,”  who,  by  rea¬ 
son  of  their  wealth,  their  talents,  their  education, 
their  families,  or  the  offices  they  hold,  aspire  to  a  pre¬ 
eminence  which  the  people  refuse  to  grant  them;  and, 
although  many  of  these  men  have  betrayed  the  inter¬ 
ests  of  their  order  to  gain  popularity,  there  reigns 
among  them  a  connection  so  much  the  more  intimate 
as  they  almost  all  of  them  dread  the  efforts  of  the 
people  to  despoil  them  of  their  possessions,  and,  more¬ 
over,  they  are  creditors,  and  therefore  interested  in 
strengthening  the  government,  and  watching  over  the 
execution  of  the  laws. 

These  men  generally  pay  very  heavy  taxes,  while  the 
small  proprietors  escape  the  vigilance  of  the  collectors. 


102  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


The  majority  of  them  being  merchants,  it  is  for  their 
interest  to  establish  the  credit  of  the  United  States  in 
Europe  on  a  solid  foundation  by  the  exact  payment 
of  debts,  and  to  grant  to  congress  powers  extensive 
enough  to  compel  the  people  to  contribute  for  this  pur¬ 
pose.  The  attempt,  my  lord,  has  been  vain,  by  pam¬ 
phlets  and  other  publications,  to  spread  notions  of  jus¬ 
tice  and  integrity,  and  to  deprive  the  people  of  a  free¬ 
dom  which  they  have  so  misused.  By  proposing  a 
new  organization  of  the  federal  government  all  minds 
would  have  been  revolted ;  circumstances  ruinous  to  the 
commerce  of  America  have  happily  arisen  to  furnish  the 
reformers  with  a  pretext  for  introducing  innovations. 

They  represented  to  the  people  that  the  American 
name  had  become  opprobrious  among  all  the  nations 
of  Europe;  that  the  flag  of  the  United  States  was  every¬ 
where  exposed  to  insults  and  annoyance;  the  husband¬ 
man,  no  longer  able  to  export  his  produce  freely,  would 
soon  be  reduced  to  want;  it  was  high  time  to  retaliate, 
and  to  convince  foreign  powers  that  the  United  States 
would  not  with  impunity  suffer  such  a  violation  of  the 
freedom  of  trade,  but  that  strong  measures  could  be 
taken  only  with  the  consent  of  the  thirteen  states,  and 
that  congress,  not  having  the  necessary  powers,  it  was 
essential  to  form  a  general  assembly  instructed  to  pre¬ 
sent  to  congress  the  plan  for  its  adoption,  and  to  point 
out  the  means  of  carrying  it  into  execution. 

The  people,  generally  discontented  with  the  obsta¬ 
cles  in  the  way  of  commerce,  and  scarcely  suspecting 
the  secret  motives  of  their  opponents,  ardently  em¬ 
braced  this  measure,  and  appointed  commissioners, 
who  were  to  assemble  at  Annapolis  in  the  beginning 
of  September. 


DARKNESS  BEFORE  DAWN 


103 


The  authors  of  this  proposition  had  no  hope,  nor  even 
desire,  to  see  the  success  of  this  assembly  of  commis¬ 
sioners,  which  was  only  intended  to  prepare  a  question 
much  more  important  than  that  of  commerce.  The 
measures  were  so  well  taken  that  at  the  end  of  Septem¬ 
ber  no  more  than  five  states  were  represented  at  An¬ 
napolis,  and  the  commissioners  from  the  northern 
states  tarried  several  days  at  New  York  in  order  to 
retard  their  arrival. 

The  states  which  assembled,  after  having  waited 
nearly  three  weeks,  separated  under  the  pretext  that 
they  were  not  in  sufficient  numbers  to  enter  on  busi¬ 
ness,  and,  to  justify  this  dissolution,  they  addressed  to 
the  different  legislatures  and  to  congress  a  report,  the 
translation  of  which  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose 
to  you.1 

Among  these  “men  denominated  ‘ gentlemen’ ” 
to  whom  the  French  Charge  d’Affaires  alludes,  was 
James  Madison  of  Virginia.  He  was  one  of  the 
younger  men,  unfitted  by  temperament  and  phy¬ 
sique  to  be  a  soldier,  who  yet  had  found  his  oppor¬ 
tunity  in  the  Revolution.  Graduating  in  1771 
from  Princeton,  where  tradition  tells  of  the  part  he 
took  in  patriotic  demonstrations  on  the  campus  — 
characteristic  of  students  then  as  now  —  he  had 
thrown  himself  heart  and  soul  into  the  American 
cause.  He  was  a  member  of  the  convention  to 

1  Quoted  by  Bancroft,  History  of  the  Formation  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tion,  vol.  ii.  Appendix,  pp.  399-400. 


104  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


frame  the  first  State  Constitution  for  Virginia  in 
1776,  and  from  that  time  on,  because  of  his  ability, 
he  was  an  important  figure  in  the  political  history 
of  his  State  and  of  his  country.  He  was  largely 
responsible  for  bringing  about  the  conference  be¬ 
tween  Virginia  and  Maryland  and  for  the  subse¬ 
quent  steps  resulting  in  the  trade  convention  at 
Annapolis.  And  yet  Madison  seldom  took  a  con¬ 
spicuous  part,  preferring  to  remain  in  the  back¬ 
ground  and  to  allow  others  to  appear  as  the  leaders. 
When  the  Annapolis  Convention  assembled,  for  ex¬ 
ample,  he  suffered  Alexander  Hamilton  of  New 
York  to  play  the  leading  role. 

Hamilton  was  then  approaching  thirty  years  of 
age  and  was  one  of  the  ablest  men  in  the  United 
States.  Though  his  best  work  was  done  in  later 
years,  when  he  proved  himself  to  be  perhaps  the 
most  brilliant  of  American  statesmen,  with  an  ex¬ 
traordinary  genius  for  administrative  organization, 
the  part  that  he  took  in  the  affairs  of  this  period 
was  important.  He  was  small  and  slight  in  person 
but  with  an  expressive  face,  fair  complexion,  and 
cheeks  of  “almost  feminine  rosiness. ”  The  usual 
aspect  of  his  countenance  was  thoughtful  and  even 
severe,  but  in  conversation  his  face  lighted  up  with 
a  remarkably  attractive  smile.  He  carried  himself 


DARKNESS  BEFORE  DAWN 


105 


erectly  and  with  dignity,  so  that  in  spite  of  his 
small  figure,  when  he  entered  a  room  “it  was  ap¬ 
parent,  from  the  respectful  attention  of  the  com¬ 
pany,  that  he  was  a  distinguished  person.”  A  con¬ 
temporary,  speaking  of  the  opposite  and  almost 
irreconcilable  traits  of  Hamilton’s  character,  pro¬ 
nounced  a  bust  of  him  as  giving  a  complete  ex¬ 
position  of  his  character:  “Draw  a  handkerchief 
around  the  mouth  of  the  bust,  and  the  remnant  of 
the  countenance  represents  fortitude  and  intrepid¬ 
ity  such  as  we  have  often  seen  in  the  plates  of  Ro¬ 
man  heroes.  Veil  in  the  same  manner  the  face  and 
leave  the  mouth  and  chin  only  discernible,  and 
all  this  fortitude  melts  and  vanishes ,  into  almost 
feminine  softness.” 

Hamilton  was  a  leading  spirit  in  the  Annapolis 
Trade  Convention  and  wrote  the  report  that  it 
adopted.  Whether  or  not  there  is  any  truth  in 
the  assertion  of  the  French  charge  that  Hamilton 
and  others  thought  it  advisable  to  disguise  their 
purposes,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  Annapolis 
Convention  was  an  all-important  step  in  the 
progress  of  reforpi,  and  its  recommendation  was 
the  direct  occasion  of  the  calling  of  the  great 
convention  that  framed  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 


106  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


The  recommendation  of  the  Annapolis  delegates 
was  in  the  form  of  a  report  to  the  legislatures  of 
their  respective  States,  in  which  they  referred  to 
the  defects  in  the  Federal  Government  and  called 
for  “a  convention  of  deputies  from  the  different 
states  for  the  special  purpose  of  entering  into  this 
investigation  and  digesting  a  Plan  for  supplying 
such  defects.”  Philadelphia  was  suggested  as  the 
place  of  meeting,  and  the  time  was  fixed  for  the 
second  Monday  in  May  of  the  next  year. 

Several  of  the  States  acted  promptly  upon  this 
recommendation  and  in  February,  1787,  Congress 
adopted  a  resolution  accepting  the  proposal  and 
calling  the  convention  “for  the  sole  and  express 
purpose  of  revising  the  Articles  of  Confederation 
and  reporting  .  .  .  such  alterations  ...  as  shall 
.  .  .  render  the  Federal  Constitution  adequate  to 
the  exigencies  of  Government  and  the  preservation 
of  the  Union.”  Before  the  time  fixed  for  the  meet¬ 
ing  of  the  Philadelphia  Convention,  or  shortly  after 
that  date,  all  the  States  had  appointed  deputies 
with  the  exception  of  New  Hampshire  and  Rhode 
Island.  New  Hampshire  was  favorably  disposed 
toward  the  meeting  but,  owing  to  local  conditions, 
failed  to  act  before  the  Convention  was  well  under 
way.  Delegates,  however,  arrived  in  time  to  share 


DARKNESS  BEFORE  DAWN 


107 


in  some  of  the  most  important  proceedings.  Rhode 
Island  alone  refused  to  take  part,  although  a  letter 
signed  by  some  of  the  prominent  men  was  sent  to 
the  Convention  pledging  their  support. 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  FEDERAL  CONVENTION 

The  body  of  delegates  which  met  in  Philadelphia  in 
1787  was  the  most  important  convention  that  ever 
sat  in  the  United  States.  The  Confederation  was 
a  failure,  and  if  the  new  nation  was  to  be  justified 
in  the  eyes  of  the  world,  it  must  show  itself  capable 
of  effective  union .  The  members  of  the  Convention 
realized  the  significance  of  the  task  before  them, 
which  was,  as  Madison  said,  “now  to  decide  forever 
the  fate  of  Republican  government.”  Gouverneur 
Morris,  with  unwonted  seriousness,  declared :  “  The 
whole  human  race  will  be  affected  by  the  proceed¬ 
ings  of  this  Convention.”  James  Wilson  spoke  with 
equal  gravity :  “After  the  lapse  of  six  thousand  years 
since  the  creation  of  the  world  America  now  presents 
the  first  instance  of  a  people  assembled  to  weigh 
deliberately  and  calmly  and  to  decide  leisurely  and 
peaceably  upon  the  form  of  government  by  which 

they  will  bind  themselves  and  their  posterity.” 

108 


THE  FEDERAL  CONVENTION 


109 


Not  all  the  men  to  whom  this  undertaking  was 
entrusted,  and  who  were  taking  themselves  and 
their  work  so  seriously,  could  pretend  to  social  dis¬ 
tinction,  but  practically  all  belonged  to  the  upper 
ruling  class.  At  the  Indian  Queen,  a  tavern  on 
Fourth  Street  between  Market  and  Chestnut,  some 
of  the  delegates  had  a  hall  in  which  they  lived  by 
themselves.  The  meetings  of  the  Convention  were 
held  in  an  upper  room  of  the  State  House.  The 
sessions  were  secret;  sentries  were  placed  at  the 
door  to  keep  away  all  intruders ;  and  the  pavement 
of  the  street  in  front  of  the  building  was  covered 
with  loose  earth  so  that  the  noises  of  passing  traffic 
should  not  disturb  this  august  assembly.  „  It  is  not 
surprising  that  a  tradition  grew  up  about  the  Fed¬ 
eral  Convention  which  hedged  it  round  with  a  sort 
of  awe  and  reverence.  Even  Thomas  Jefferson  re¬ 
ferred  to  it  as  “an  assembly  of  demigods.’ ’  If  we 
can  get  away  from  the  glamour  which  has  been 
spread  over  the  work  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Consti¬ 
tution  and  understand  that  they  were  human  be¬ 
ings,  even  as  we  are,  and  influenced  by  the  same 
motives  as  other  men,  it  may  be  possible  to  ob¬ 
tain  a  more  faithful  impression  of  what  actually 
took  place. 

Since  representation  in  the  Convention  was  to  be 


110  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

by  States,  just  as  it  had  been  in  the  Continental 
Congress,  the  presence  of  delegations  from  a  ma¬ 
jority  of  the  States  was  necessary  for  organization. 
It  is  a  commentary  upon  the  times,  upon  the  diffi¬ 
culties  of  travel,  and  upon  the  leisurely  habits  of 
the  people,  that  the  meeting  which  had  been  called 
for  the  14th  of  May  could  not  begin  its  work  for 
over  ten  days.  The  25th  of  May  was  stormy,  and 
only  twenty-nine  delegates  were  on  hand  when 
the  Convention  organized.  The  slender  attendance 
can  only  partially  be  attributed  to  the  weather,  for 
in  the  following  three  months  and  a  half  of  the  Con¬ 
vention,  at  which  fifty-five  members  were  present 
at  one  time  or  another,  the  average  attendance  was 
only  slightly  larger  than  that  of  the  first  day.  In 
such  a  small  body  personality  counted  for  much,  in 
ways  that  the  historian  can  only  surmise.  Many 
compromises  of  conflicting  interests  were  reached 
by  informal  discussion  outside  of  the  formal  ses¬ 
sions.  In  these  small  gatherings  individual  char¬ 
acter  was  often  as  decisive  as  weighty  argument. 
,  >  George  Washington  was  unanimously  chosen  as 
the  presiding  officer  of  the  Convention.  He  sat  on 
a  raised  platform,  in  a  large,  carved,  high-backed 
chair,  from  which  his  commanding  figure  and  dig¬ 
nified  bearing  exerted  a  potent  influence  on  the 


THE  FEDERAL  CONVENTION 


111 


assembly,  an  influence  enhanced  by  the  formal  cour¬ 
tesy  and  stately  intercourse  of  the  times.  Wash¬ 
ington  was  the  great  man  of  his  day  and  the  mem¬ 
bers  not  only  respected  and  admired  him;  some  of 
them  were  actually  afraid  of  him.  When  he  rose 
to  his  feet  he  was  almost  the  Commander-in-Chief 
again.  There  is  evidence  to  show  that  his  support 
or  disapproval  was  at  times  a  decisive  factor  in  the 
deliberations  of  the  Convention. 

Virginia,  which  had  taken  a  conspicuous  part  in 
the  calling  of  the  Convention,  was  looked  to  for 
leadership  in  the  work  that  was  to  be  done.  James 
Madison,  next  to  Washington  the  most  important 
member  of  the  Virginia  delegation,  was  the  very 
opposite  of  Washington  in  many  respects  —  small 
and  slight  in  stature,  inconspicuous  in  dress  as  in 
figure,  modest  and  retiring,  but  with  a  quick,  active 
mind  and  wide  knowledge  obtained  both  from  ex¬ 
perience  in  public  affairs  and  from  extensive  read¬ 
ing.  Washington  was  the  man  of  action ;  Madison, 
the  scholar  in  politics.  Madison  was  the  younger 
by  nearly  twenty  years,  but  Washington  admired 
him  greatly  and  gave  him  the  support  of  his  in¬ 
fluence  —  a  matter  of  no  little  consequence,  for 
Madison  was  the  leading  expert  worker  of  the  Con¬ 
vention  in  the  business  of  framing  the  Constitution. 


112  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


Governor  Edmund  Randolph,  with  his  tall  figure, 
handsome  face,  and  dignified  manner,  made  an 
excellent  impression  in  the  position  accorded  to 
him  of  nominal  leader  of  the  Virginia  delegation. 
Among  others  from  the  same  State  who  should  be 
noticed  were  the  famous  lawyers,  George  Wythe 
and  George  Mason. 

Among  the  deputies  from  Pennsylvania  the  fore¬ 
most  was  James  Wilson,  the  “Caledonian/5  who 
probably  stood  next  in  importance  in  the  Conven¬ 
tion  to  Madison  and  Washington.  He  had  come 
to  America  as  a  young  man  just  when  the  troubles 
with  England  were  beginning  and  by  sheer  ability 
had  attained  a  position  of  prominence.  Several 
times  a  member  of  Congress,  a  signer  of  the  Dec¬ 
laration  of  Independence,  he  was  now  regarded  as 
one  of  the  ablest  lawyers  in  the  United  States.  A 
more  brilliant  member  of  the  Pennsylvania  delega¬ 
tion,  and  one  of  the  most  brilliant  of  the  Conven¬ 
tion,  was  Gouverneur  Morris,  who  shone  by  his 
cleverness  and  quick  wit  as  well  as  by  his  wonder¬ 
ful  command  of  language.  But  Morris  was  ad¬ 
mired  more  than  he  was  trusted;  and,  while  he  sup¬ 
ported  the  efforts  for  a  strong  government,  his  sup¬ 
port  was  not  always  as  great  a  help  as  might  have 
been  expected.  A  crippled  arm  and  a  wooden  leg 


THE  FEDERAL  CONVENTION 


113 


might  detract  from  his  personal  appearance,  but 
they  could  not  subdue  his  spirit  and  audacity.1 

There  were  other  prominent  members  of  the 
Pennsylvania  delegation,  but  none  of  them  took  an 
important  part  in  the  Convention,  not  even  the 
aged  Benjamin  Franklin,  President  of  the  State.  ^ 
At  the  age  of  eighty-one  his  powers  were  failing, 
and  he  was  so  feeble  that  his  colleague  Wilson  read 
his  speeches  for  him.  His  opinions  were  respected, 
but  they  do  not  seem  to  have  carried  much  weight. 

Other  noteworthy  members  of  the  Convention, 
though  hardly  in  the  first  class,  were  the  handsome 
and  charming  Rufus  King  of  Massachusetts,  one 
of  the  coming  men  of  the  country,  and  Nathaniel 

1  There  is  a  story  which  illustrates  admirably  the  audacity  of 
Morris  and  the  austere  dignity  of  Washington.  The  story  runs 
that  Morris  and  several  members  of  the  Cabinet  were  spending 
an  evening  at  the  President’s  house  in  Philadelphia,  where  they 
were  discussing  the  absorbing  question  of  the  hour,  whatever  it 
may  have  been.  “The  President,”  Morris  is  said  to  have  related 
on  the  following  day,  “  was  standing  with  his  arms  behind  him  — 
his  usual  position  —  his  back  to  the  fire.  I  started  up  and  spoke, 
stamping,  as  I  walked  up  and  down,  with  my  wooden  leg;  and,  as 
I  was  certain  I  had  the  best  of  the  argument,  as  I  finished  I  stalked 
up  to  the  President,  slapped  him  on  the  back,  and  said,  ‘Ain’t  I 
right.  General?’  The  President  did  not  speak,  but  the  majesty 
of  the  American  people  was  before  me.  Oh,  his  look!  How  I 
wished  the  floor  would  open  and  I  could  descend  to  the  cellar! 
You  know  me,”  continued  Mr.  Morris,  “and  you  know  my  eye 
would  never  quail  before  any  other  mortal.”  — W.  T.  Read,  Life 
and  Correspondence  of  George  Read  (1870)  p.  441. 

8 


114  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

Gorham  of  the  same  State,  who  was  President  of 
Congress  —  a  man  of  good  sense  rather  than  of 
great  ability,  but  one  whose  reputation  was  high 
and  whose  presence  was  a  distinct  asset  to  the  Con¬ 
vention.  Then,  too,  there  were  the  delegates  from 
South  Carolina:  John  Rutledge,  the  orator,  Gen- 
eral  Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney  of  Revolutionary 
fame,  and  his  cousin,  Charles  Pinckney.  The  last 
named  took  a  conspicuous  part  in  the  proceedings 
in  Philadelphia  but,  so  far  as  the  outcome  was  con¬ 
cerned,  left  his  mark  on  the  Constitution  mainly  in 
minor  matters  and  details. 

The  men  who  have  been  named  were  nearly  all 
supporters  of  the  plan  for  a  centralized  government. 
On  the  other  side  were  William  Paterson  of  New 
Jersey,  who  had  been  Attorney-General  of  his 
State  for  eleven  years  and  who  was  respected  for 
his  knowledge  and  ability;  John  Dickinson  of  Dela¬ 
ware,  the  author  of  the  Farmer’s  Letters  and  chair¬ 
man  of  the  committee  of  Congress  that  had  framed 
the  Articles  of  Confederation  —  able,  scholarly, 
and  sincere,  but  nervous,  sensitive,  and  conscien¬ 
tious  to  the  verge  of  timidity  —  whose  refusal  to 
sign  the  Declaration  of  Independence  had  cost  him 
his  popularity,  though  he  was  afterward  returned 
to  Congress  and  became  president  successively  of 


THE  FEDERAL  CONVENTION 


115 


Delaware  and  of  Pennsylvania;  Elbridge  Gerry  of 
Massachusetts,  a  successful  merchant,  prominent 
in  politics,  and  greatly  interested  in  questions  of 
commerce  and  finance;  and  the  Connecticut  dele¬ 
gates,  forming  an  unusual  trio,  Dr.  William  Samuel 
Johnson,  Roger  Sherman,  and  Oliver  Ellsworth. 
These  men  were  fearful  of  establishing  too  strong  a 
government  and  were  at  one  time  or  another  to  be 
found  in  opposition  to  Madison  and  his  supporters. 
They  were  not  mere  obstructionists,  however,  and 
while  not  constructive  in  the  same  way  that  Madi¬ 
son  and  Wilson  were,  they  must  be  given  some 
credit  for  the  form  which  the  Constitution  finally 
assumed.  Their  greatest  service  was  in  restraining 
the  tendency  of  the  majority  to  overrule  the  rights 
of  States  and  in  modifying  the  desires  of  individ¬ 
uals  for  a  government  that  would  have  been  too 
strong  to  work  well  in  practice. 

Alexander  Hamilton  of  New  York,  as  one  of  the 
ablest  members  of  the  Convention,  was  expected  to 
take  an  important  part,  but  he  was  out  of  touch 
with  the  views  of  the  majority.  He  was  aristo¬ 
cratic  rather  than  democratic  and,  however  excel¬ 
lent  his  ideas  may  have  been,  they  were  too  radi¬ 
cal  for  his  fellow  delegates  and  found  but  little  sup¬ 
port.  He  threw  his  strength  in  favor  of  a  strong 


116  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


government  and  was  ready  to  aid  the  movement  ir! 
whatever  way  he  could.  But  within  his  own  delega 
tion  he  was  outvoted  by  Robert  Yates  and  John 
Lansing,  and  before  the  sessions  were  half  over  h  t 
was  deprived  of  a  vote  by  the  withdrawal  of  his 
colleagues.  Thereupon,  finding  himself  of  little 
service,  he  went  to  New  York  and  returned  to 
Philadelphia  only  once  or  twice  for  a  few  days  at 
a  time,  and  finally  to  sign  the  completed  document. 
Luther  Martin  of  Maryland  was  an  able  lawyer 
and  the  Attorney-General  of  his  State;  but  he  was 
supposed  to  be  allied  with  undesirable  interests, 
and  it  was  said  that  he  had  been  sent  to  the  Con¬ 
vention  for  the  purpose  of  opposing  a  strong  gov¬ 
ernment.  He  proved  to  be  a  tiresome  speaker  and 
his  prosiness,  when  added  to  the  suspicion  attach¬ 
ing  to  his  motives,  cost  him  much  of  the  influence 
which  he  might  otherwise  have  had. 

All  in  all,  the  delegates  to  the  Federal  Conven¬ 
tion  were  a  remarkable  body  of  men.  Most  of  them 
had  played  important  parts  in  the  drama  of  the 
Revolution;  three-fourths  of  them  had  served  in 
Congress,  and  practically  all  were  persons  of  note 
in  their  respective  States  and  had  held  important 
public  positions.  They  may  not  have  been  the 
“assembly  of  demigods”  which  Jefferson  called 


THE  FEDERAL  CONVENTION  117 

them,  for  another  contemporary  insisted  “that 
twenty  assemblies  of  equal  number  might  be  col¬ 
lected  equally  respectable  both  in  point  of  ability, 
integrity,  and  patriotism.”  Perhaps  it  would  be 
safer  to  regard  the  Convention  as  a  fairly  represen¬ 
tative  body,  which  was  of  a  somewhat  higher  order 
than  would  be  gathered  together  today,  because 
the  social  conditions  of  those  days  tended  to  bring 
forward  men  of  a  better  class,  and  because  the 
seriousness  of  the  crisis  had  called  out  leaders  of 
the  highest  type. 

Two  or  three  days  were  consumed  in  organizing 
the  Convention  —  electing  officers,  considering  the 
delegates’  credentials,  and  adopting  rules  of  proce¬ 
dure;  and  when  these  necessary  preliminaries  had 
been  accomplished  the  main  business  was  cpened 
with  the  presentation  by  the  Virginia  delegation  of 
a  series  of  resolutions  providing  for  radical  changes 
in  the  machinery  of  the  Confederation.  The  prin¬ 
cipal  features  were  the  organization  of  a  legislature 
of  two  houses  proportional  to  population  and  with 
increased  powers,  the  establishment  of  a  separate 
executive,  and  the  creation  of  an  independent  ju¬ 
diciary.  This  was  in  reality  providing  for  a  new 
government  and  was  probably  quite  beyond  the 


118  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

ideas  of  most  of  the  members  of  the  Convention, 
who  had  come  there  under  instructions  and  with 
the  expectation  of  revising  the  Articles  of  Confed¬ 
eration.  But  after  the  Virginia  Plan  had  been  the 

...  — w  - 

subject  of  discussion  for  two  weeks  so  that  the 
members  had  become  a  little  more  accustomed  to 
its  proposals,  and  after  minor  modifications  had 
been  made  in  the  wording  of  the  resolutions,  the 
Convention  was  won  over  to  its  support.  To 
check  this  drift  toward  radical  change  the  opposi¬ 
tion  headed  by  New  Jersey  and  Connecticut  pre¬ 
sented  the  so-called  New  Jersey  Plan,  which  was  in 
sharp  contrast  to  the  Virginia  Resolutions,  for  it 
contemplated  only  a  revision  of  the  Articles  of  Con¬ 
federation,  but  after  a  relatively  short  discussion, 
the  Virginia  Plan  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  seven 
States  against  four,  with  one  State  divided. 

The  dividing  line  between  the  two  parties  or 
groups  in  the  Convention  had  quickly  manifested 
itself.  It  proved  to  be  the  same  line  that  had  di¬ 
vided  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation,  the  cleav¬ 
age  between  the  large  States  and  the  small  States. 
The  large  States  were  in  favor  of  representation  in 
both  houses  of  the  legislature  according  to  popula¬ 
tion,  while  the  small  States  were  opposed  to  any 
change  which  would  deprive  them  of  their  equal 


THE  FEDERAL  CONVENTION 


119 


vote  in  Congress,  and  though  outvoted,  they  were 
not  ready  to  yield.  The  Virginia  Plan,  and  subse¬ 
quently  the  New  Jersey  Plan,  had  first  been  con¬ 
sidered  in  committee  of  the  whole,  and  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  “proportional  represen tation,”  as  it  was 
then  called,  would  accordingly  come  up  again  in 
formal  session.  Several  weeks  had  been  occupied 
by  the  proceedings,  so  that  it  was  now  near  the  end 
of  June,  and  in  general  the  discussions  had  been 
conducted  with  remarkably  good  temper.  But  it 
was  evidently  the  calm  before  the  storm.  And  the 
issue  was  finally  joined  when  the  question  of  repre¬ 
sentation  in  the  two  houses  again  came  before  the 
Convention.  The  majority  of  the  States  on  the 
29th  of  June  once  more  voted  in  favor  of  propor¬ 
tional  representation  in  the  lower  house.  But  on 
the  question  of  the  upper  house,  owing  to  a  pecu¬ 
liar  combination  of  circumstances  —  the  absence 
of  one  delegate  and  another’s  change  of  vote  caus¬ 
ing  the  position  of  their  respective  States  to  be  re¬ 
versed  or  nullified  —  the  vote  on  the  2d  of  July  re¬ 
sulted  in  a  tie.  This  brought  the  proceedings  of 
the  Convention  to  a  standstill.  A  committee  of 
one  member  from  each  State  was  appointed  to  con¬ 
sider  the  question,  and,  “that  time  might  be  given 
to  the  Committee,  and  to  such  as  chose  to  attend 


120  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


to  the  celebration  on  the  anniversary  of  Independ¬ 
ence,  the  Convention  adjourned”  over  the  Fourth. 
The  committee  was  chosen  by  ballot,  and  its  com¬ 
position  was  a  clear  indication  that  the  small-State 
men  had  won  their  fight,  and  that  a  compromise 
would  be  effected. 

,  It  was  during  the  debate  upon  this  subject,  when 
feeling  was  running  high  and  when  at  times  it 
seemed  as  if  the  Convention  in  default  of  any  satis¬ 
factory  solution  would  permanently  adjourn,  that 
Franklin  proposed  that  “prayers  imploring  the  as¬ 
sistance  of  Heaven  ...  be  held  in  this  Assembly 
every  morning.”  Tradition  relates  that  Hamilton 
opposed  the  motion.  The  members  were  evidently 
afraid  of  the  impression  which  would  be  created 
outside,  if  it  were  suspected  that  there  were  dis¬ 
sensions  in  the  Convention,  and  the  motion  was  not 
put  to  a  vote. 

How  far  physical  conditions  may  influence  men 
in  adopting  any  particular  course  of  action  it  is 
impossible  to  say.  But  just  when  the  discussion  in 
the  Convention  reached  a  critical  stage,  just  when 
the  compromise  presented  by  the  committee  was 
ready  for  adoption  or  rejection,  the  weather  turned 
from  unpleasantly  hot  to  being  comfortably  cool. 
And,  after  some  little  time  spent  in  the  consideration 


THE  FEDERAL  CONVENTION 


121 


of  details,  on  the  16th  of  July,  the  great  com¬ 
promise  of  the  Constitution  was  adopted.  There 
was  no  other  that  compared  with  it  in  importance. 
Its  most  significant  features  were  that  in  the  upper 
house  each  State  should  have  an  equal  vote  and 
that  in  the  lower  house  representation  should  be 
apportioned  on  the  basis  of  population,  while  direct 
taxation  should  follow  the  same  proportion.  The 
further  proviso  that  money  bills  should  originate 
in  the  lower  house  and  should  not  be  amended  in 
the  upper  house  was  regarded  by  some  delegates  as 
of  considerable  importance,  though  others  did  not 
think  so,  and  eventually  the  restriction  upon  amend¬ 
ment  by  the  upper  house  was  dropped. 

There  has  long  been  a  prevailing  belief  that  an 
essential  feature  of  the  great  compromise  was  the 
counting  of  only  three-fifths  of  the  slaves  in  enu¬ 
merating  the  population.  This  impression  is  quite 
erroneous.  It  was  one  of  the  details  of  the  com¬ 
promise,  but  it  had  been  a  feature  of  the  revenue 
amendment  of  1783,  and  it  was  generally  accepted 
as  a  happy  solution  of  the  difficulty  that  slaves  pos¬ 
sessed  the  attributes  both  of  persons  and  of  prop¬ 
erty.  It  had  been  included  both  in  the  amended 
Virginia  Plan  and  in  the  New  Jersey  Plan;  and 
when  it  was  embodied  in  the  compromise  it  was 


122  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


described  as  “the  ratio  recommended  by  Congress 
in  their  resolutions  of  April  18,  1783. ”  A  few 
months  later,  in  explaining  the  matter  to  the 
Massachusetts  convention,  Rufus  King  said  that, 
“This  rule  .  .  .  was  adopted  because  it  was  the 
language  of  all  America.”  In  reality  the  three- 
fifths  rule  was  a  mere  incident  in  that  part  of  the 
great  compromise  which  declared  that  “represen¬ 
tation  should  be  proportioned  according  to  direct 
taxation.”  As  a  further  indication  of  the  attitude 
of  the  Convention  upon  this  point,  an  amendment 
to  have  the  blacks  counted  equally  with  the  whites 
was  voted  down  by  eight  States  against  two. 

'  With  the  adoption  of  the  great  compromise  a 
marked  difference  was  noticeable  in  the  attitude  of  , 
the  delegates.  Those  from  the  large  States  were 
deeply  disappointed  at  the  result  and  they  asked 
for  an  adjournment  to  give  them  time  to  consider 
what  they  should  do.  The  next  morning,  before 
the  Convention  met,  they  held  a  meeting  to  deter¬ 
mine  upon  their  course  of  action.  They  were  ap¬ 
parently  afraid  of  taking  the  responsibility  for 
breaking  up  the  Convention,  so  they  finally  decided 
to  let  the  proceedings  go  on  and  to  see  what  might 
be  the  ultimate  outcome.  Rumors  of  these  dis¬ 
sensions  had  reached  the  ears  of  the  public,  and  it 


THE  FEDERAL  CONVENTION 


123 


may  have  been  to  quiet  any  misgivings  that  the 
following  inspired  item  appeared  in  several  local 
papers :  “So  great  is  the  unanimity,  we  hear,  that 
prevails  in  the  Convention,  upon  all  great  federal 
subjects,  that  it  has  been  proposed  to  call  the  room 
in  which  they  assemble  Unanimity  Hall.” 

On  the  other  hand  the  effect  of  this  great  com¬ 
promise  upon  the  delegates  from  the  small  States 
was  distinctly  favorable.  Having  obtained  equal 
representation  in  one  branch  of  the  legislature,  they 
now  proceeded  with  much  greater  willingness  to 
consider  the  strengthening  of  the  central  govern¬ 
ment.  Many  details  were  yet  to  be  arranged,  and 
sharp  differences  of  opinion  existed  in  connection 
with  the  executive  as  well  as  with  the  judiciary. 
But  these  difficulties  were  slight  in  comparison  with 
those  which  they  had  already  surmounted  in  the 
matter  of  representation.  By  the  end  of  July  the 
fifteen  resolutions  of  the  original  Virginia  Plan  had 
been  increased  to  twenty-three,  with  many  en¬ 
largements  and  amendments,  and  the  Convention 
had  gone  as  far  as  it  could  effectively  in  determin¬ 
ing  the  general  principles  upon  which  the  govern¬ 
ment  should  be  formed.  There  were  too  many 
members  to  work  efficiently  when  it  came  to  the  ac¬ 
tual  framing  of  a  constitution  with  all  the  inevitable 


124  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


details  that  were  necessary  in  setting  up  a  ma¬ 
chinery  of  government.  Accordingly  this  task  was 
turned  over  to  a  committee  of  five  members  who 
had  already  given  evidence  of  their  ability  in  this 
direction.  Rutledge  was  made  the  chairman,  and 
the  others  were  Randolph,  Gorham,  Ellsworth,  and 
Wilson.  To  give  them  time  to  perfect  their  work, 
on  the  26th  of  July  the  Convention  adjourned  for 
ten  days. 


CHAPTER  VII 


FINISHING  THE  WORK 

Rutledge  and  his  associates  on  the  committee  of 
detail  accomplished  so  much  in  such  a  short  time 
that  it  seems  as  if  they  must  have  worked  day  and 
night.  Their  efforts  marked  a  distinct  stage  in  the 
development  of  the  Constitution.  The  committee 
left  no  records,  but  some  of  the  members  retained 
among  their  private  papers  drafts  of  the  different 
stages  of  the  report  they  were  framing,  and  we  are 
therefore  able  to  surmise  the  way  in  which  the  com¬ 
mittee  proceeded.  Of  course  the  members  were 
bound  by  the  resolutions  which  had  been  adopted 
by  the  Convention  and  they  held  themselves  close¬ 
ly  to  the  general  principles  that  had  been  laid  down. 
But  in  the  elaboration  of  details  they  seem  to  have 
begun  with  the  Articles  of  Confederation  and  to 
have  used  all  of  that  document  that  was  consist¬ 
ent  with  the  new  plan  of  government.  Then  they 
made  use  of  the  New  Jersey  Plan,  which  had  been 

125 


126  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


put  forward  by  the  smaller  States,  and  of  a  third 
plan  which  had  been  presented  by  Charles  Pinck-  J 
ney;  for  the  rest  they  drew  largely  upon  the  State  \ 
Constitutions.  By  a  combination  of  these  different 
sources  the  committee  prepared  a  document  bear¬ 
ing  a  close  resemblance  to  the  present  Constitution, 
although  subjects  were  in  a  different  order  and  in  | 
somewhat  different  proportions,  which,  at  the  end 
of  ten  days,  by  working  on  Sunday,  they  were  able 
to  present  to  the  Convention.  This  draft  of  a 
constitution  was  printed  on  seven  folio  pages  with 
wide  margins  for  notes  and  emendations. 

The  Convention  resumed  its  sessions  on  Mon¬ 
day,  the  6th  of  August,  and  for  five  weeks  the  re¬ 
port  of  the  committee  of  detail  was  the  subject  of 
discussion.  For  five  hours  each  day,  and  sometimes 
for  six  hours,  the  delegates  kept  persistently  at 
their  task.  It  was  midsummer,  and  we  read  in  the  1 
diary  of  one  of  the  members  that  in  all  that  period 
only  five  days  were  “cool.”  Item  by  item,  line  by  j 
line,  the  printed  draft  of  the  Constitution  was  con¬ 
sidered.  It  is  not  possible,  nor  is  it  necessary,  to 
follow  that  work  minutely;  much  of  it  was  purely  * 
formal,  and  yet  any  one  who  has  had  experience 
with  committee  reports  knows  how  much  import¬ 
ance  attaches  to  matters  of  phrasing.  Just  as  the 


FINISHING  THE  WORK 


127 


Virginia  Plan  was  made  more  acceptable  to  the  ma¬ 
jority  by  changes  in  wording  that  seem  to  us  insig¬ 
nificant,  so  modifications  in  phrasing  slowly  won 
support  for  the  draft  of  the  Constitution. 

^The  adoption  of  the  great  compromise,  as  we 
have  seen,  changed  the  whole  spirit  of  the  Conven¬ 
tion.  There  was  now  an  expectation  on  the  part 
of  the  members  that  something  definite  was  going 
to  be  accomplished,  and  all  were  concerned  in  mak¬ 
ing  the  result  as  good  and  as  acceptable  as  possible. 
In  other  words,  the  spirit  of  compromise  pervaded 
every  action,  and  it  is  essential  to  remember  this  in 
considering  what  was  accomplished. 

One  of  the  greatest  weaknesses  of  the  Confedera¬ 
tion  was  the  inefficiency  of  Congress.  More  than 
four  pages,  or  three-fifths  of  the  whole  printed 
draft,  were  devoted  to  Congress  and  its  powers. 
It  is  more  significant,  however,  that  in  the  new 
Constitution  the  legislative  powers  of  the  Confed¬ 
eration  were  transferred  bodily  to  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States,  and  that  the  powers  added  were 
few  in  number,  although  of  course  of  the  first  im¬ 
portance.  The  Virginia  Plan  declared  that,  in  ad¬ 
dition  to  the  powers  under  the  Confederation,  Con¬ 
gress  should  have  the  right  “to  legislate  in  all  cases 
to  which  the  separate  States  are  incompetent.” 

•  ■ 


128  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


This  statement  was  elaborated  in  the  printed  draft 
which  granted  specific  powers  of  taxation,  of  regu¬ 
lating  commerce,  of  establishing  a  uniform  rule  of 
naturalization,  and  at  the  end  of  the  enumeration 
of  powers  two  clauses  were  added  giving  to  Con¬ 
gress  authority  : 

To  call  forth  the  aid  of  the  militia,  in  order  to  execute 
the  laws  of  the  Union,  enforce  treaties,  suppress  insur¬ 
rections,  and  repel  invasions; 

And  to  make  all  laws  that  shall  be  necessary  and  prop¬ 
er  for  carrying  into  execution  the  foregoing  powers. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  was  necessary  to  place 
some  limitations  upon  the  power  of  Congress.  A 
general  restriction  was  laid  by  giving  to  the  execu¬ 
tive  a  right  of  veto,  which  might  be  overruled,  how¬ 
ever,  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  both  houses.  Follow¬ 
ing  British  tradition  —  yielding  as  it  were  to  an  in¬ 
herited  fear  —  these  delegates  in  America  were  led 
to  place  the  first  restraint  upon  the  exercise  of  con¬ 
gressional  authority  in  connection  with  treason. 
The  legislature  of  the  United  States  was  given  the 
power  to  declare  the  punishment  of  treason;  but 
treason  itself  wTas  defined  in  the  Constitution,  and 
it  was  further  asserted  that  a  person  could  be  con¬ 
victed  of  treason  only  on  the  testimony  of  two  wit¬ 
nesses,  and  that  attainder  of  treason  should  not 


FINISHING  THE  WORK 


129 


“work  corruption  of  blood  nor  forfeiture  except 
during  the  life  of  the  person  attainted.”  Arising 
more  nearly  out  of  their  own  experience  was  the 
prohibition  of  export  taxes,  of  capitation  taxes,  and 
of  the  granting  of  titles  of  nobility. 

While  the  committee  of  detail  was  preparing  its 
report,  the  Southern  members  of  that  committee 
had  succeeded  in  getting  a  provision  inserted  that 
navigation  acts  could  be  passed  only  by  a  two- 
thirds  vote  of  both  houses  of  the  legislature.  New 
England  and  the  Middle  States  were  strongly  in 
favor  of  navigation  acts  for,  if  they  could  require 
all  American  products  to  be  carried  in  American- 
built  and  American-owned  vessels,  they  would  give 
a  great  stimulus  to  the  ship-building  and  commerce 
of  the  United  States.  They  therefore  wished  to 
give  Congress  power  in  this  matter  on  exactly  the 
same  terms  that  other  powers  were  granted.  The 
South,  however,  was  opposed  to  this  policy,  for  it 
wanted  to  encourage  the  cheapest  method  of  ship¬ 
ping  its  raw  materials.  The  South  also  wanted  a 
larger  number  of  slaves  to  meet  its  labor  demands. 
To  this  need  New  England  was  not  favorably  dis¬ 
posed.  To  reconcile  the  conflicting  interests  of  the 
two  sections  a  compromise  was  finally  reached.  The 
requirement  of  a  two-thirds  vote  of  both  houses  for 


130  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


the  passing  of  navigation  acts  which  the  Southern 
members  had  obtained  was  abandoned,  and  on  the 
other  hand  it  was  determined  that  Congress  should 
not  be  allowed  to  interfere  with  the  importation  of 
slaves  for  twenty  years.  This,  again,  was  one  of 
the  important  and  conspicuous  compromises  of  the 
Constitution.  It  is  liable,  however,  to  be  misun¬ 
derstood,  for  one  should  not  read  into  the  senti¬ 
ment  of  the  members  of  the  Convention  any  of  the 
later  strong  prejudice  against  slavery.  There  were 
some  who  objected  on  moral  grounds  to  the  recog¬ 
nition  of  slavery  in  the  Constitution,  and  that  word 
was  carefully  avoided  by  referring  to  “such  Persons 
as  any  States  now  existing  shall  think  proper  to  ad¬ 
mit.”  And  there  were  some  who  were  especially 
opposed  to  the  encouragement  of  that  institution 
by  permitting  the  slave  trade,  but  the  majority  of 
the  delegates  regarded  slavery  as  an  accepted  in¬ 
stitution,  as  a  part  of  the  established  order,  and 
public  sentiment  on  the  slave  trade  was  not  much 
more  emphatic  and  positive  than  it  is  now  on 
cruelty  to  animals.  As  Ellsworth  said,  “The  mo¬ 
rality  or  wisdom  of  slavery  are  considerations  be¬ 
longing  to  the  States  themselves,”  and  the  com¬ 
promise  was  nothing  more  or  less  than  a  bargain 
between  the  sections. 


FINISHING  THE  WORK  131 

The  fundamental  weakness  of  the  Confederation 
was  the  inability  of  the  Government  to  enforce  its 
decrees,  and  in  spite  of  the  increased  powers  of  , 
Congress,  even  including  the  use  of  the  militia  “to 
execute  the  laws  of  the  Union,”  it  was  not  felt  that 
this  defect  had  been  entirely  remedied.  Experi¬ 
ence  under  the  Confederation  had  taught  men  that 
something  more  was  necessary  in  the  direction  of 
restricting  the  States  in  matters  which  might  inter¬ 
fere  with  the  working  of  the  central  Government, 
As  in  the  case  of  the  powers  of  Congress,  the  Arti¬ 
cles  of  Confederation  were  again  resorted  to  and 
the  restrictions  which  had  been  placed  upon  the 
States  in  that  document  were  now  embodied  in 
the  Constitution  with  modifications  and  additions. 
But  the  final  touch  was  given  in  connection  with 
the  judiciary. 

There  was  little  in  the  printed  draft  and  there  is 
comparatively  little  in  the  Constitution  on  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  the  judiciary.  A  Federal  Supreme  Court 
was  provided  for,  and  Congress  was  permitted,  but 
not  required,  to  establish  inferior  courts;  while  the 
jurisdiction  of  these  tribunals  was  determined  upon 
the  general  principles  that  it  should  extend  to 
cases  arising  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of 
the  United  States,  to  treaties  and  cases  in  which 


132  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


foreigners  and  foreign  countries  were  involved,  and 
to  controversies  between  States  and  citizens  of  dif¬ 
ferent  States.  Nowhere  in  the  document  itself  is 
there  any  word  as  to  that  great  power  which  has 
been  exercised  by  the  Federal  courts  of  declaring 
null  and  void  laws  or  parts  of  laws  that  are  re¬ 
garded  as  in  contravention  to  the  Constitution. 
There  is  little  doubt  that  the  more  important  men 
in  the  Convention,  such  as  Wilson,  Madison,  Gou- 
verneur  Morris,  Kang,  Gerry,  Mason,  and  Luther 
Martin,  believed  that  the  judiciary  would  exercise 
this  power,  even  though  it  should  not  be  specifically 
granted.  The  nearest  approach  to  a  declaration  of 
this  power  is  to  be  found  in  a  paragraph  that  was 
inserted  toward  the  end  of  the  Constitution.  Odd¬ 
ly  enough,  this  was  a  modification  of  a  clause  intro¬ 
duced  by  Luther  Martin  with  quite  another  intent. 
As  adopted  it  reads :  “That  this  Constitution  and 
the  Laws  of  the  United  States  .  .  .  and  all  Trea¬ 
ties  .  ;  .  shall  be  the  supreme  Law  of  the  Land; 
and  the  Judges  in  every  State  shall  be  bound  there¬ 
by;  any  Thing  in  the  Constitution  or  Laws  of  any 
State  to  the  Contrary  notwithstanding.”  This 
paragraph  may  well  be  regarded  as  the  keystone  of 
the  constitutional  arch  of  national  power.  Its  sig¬ 
nificance  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  Constitution  is 


FINISHING  THE  WORK 


133 


regarded  not  as  a  treaty  nor  as  an  agreement  between 
States,  but  as  a  law;  and  while  its  enforcement  is 
backed  by  armed  power,  it  is  a  law  enforceable  in 
the  courts. 

One  whole  division  of  the  Constitution  has  been 
as  yet  barely  referred  to,  and  it  not  only  presented 
one  of  the  most  perplexing  problems  which  the  Con¬ 
vention  faced  but  one  of  the  last  to  be  settled  — 
that  providing  for  an  executive.  There  was  a  gen¬ 
eral  agreement  in  the  Convention  that  there  should 
be  a  separate  executive.  The  opinion  also  devel¬ 
oped  quite  early  that  a  single  executive  was  better 
than  a  plural  body,  but  that  was  as  far  as  the  mem¬ 
bers  could  go  with  any  degree  of  unanimity.  At 
the  outset  they  seemed  to  have  thought  that  the 
executive  would  be  dependent  upon  the  legislature, 
appointed  by  that  body,  and  therefore  more  or  less 
subject  to  its  control.  But  in  the  course  of  the 
proceedings  the  tendency  was  to  grant  greater  and 
greater  powers  to  the  executive;  in  other  words, 
he  was  becoming  a  figure  of  importance.  No  such 
office  as  that  of  President  of  the  United  States  was 
then  in  existence.  It  was  a  new  position  which 
they  were  creating.  We  have  become  so  accus¬ 
tomed  to  it  that  it  is  difficult  for  us  to  hark  back 
to  the  time  when  there  was  no  such  officer  and  to 


134  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

realize  the  difficulties  and  the  fears  of  the  men  who 
were  responsible  for  creating  that  office. 

The  presidency  was  obviously  modeled  after 
the  governorship  of  the  individual  States,  and  yet 
the  incumbent  was  to  be  at  the  head  of  the 
Thirteen  States.  Rufus  King  is  frequently  quot¬ 
ed  to  the  effect  that  the  men  of  that  time  had 
been  accustomed  to  considering  themselves  sub¬ 
jects  of  the  British  king.  Even  at  the  time  of  the 
Convention  there  is  good  evidence  to  show  that 
some  of  the  members  were  still  agitating  the  desir¬ 
ability  of  establishing  a  monarchy  in  the  United 
States.  It  was  a  common  rumor  that  a  son  of 
George  III  was  to  be  invited  to  come  over,  and 
there  is  reason  to  believe  that  only  a  few  months 
before  the  Convention  met  Prince  Henry  of  Prussia 
was  approached  by  prominent  people  in  this  coun¬ 
try  to  see  if  he  could  be  induced  to  accept  the  head¬ 
ship  of  the  States,  that  is,  to  become  the  king  of  the 
United  States.  The  members  of  the  Convention 
evidently  thought  that  they  were  establishing 
something  like  a  monarchy.  As  Randolph  said, 
the  people  would  see  “the  form  at  least  of  a  little 
monarch, 99  and  they  did  not  want  him  to  have  des¬ 
potic  powers.  When  the  sessions  were  over,  a  lady 
asked  Franklin :  “  Well,  Doctor,  what  have  we  got, 


FINISHING  THE  WORK 


135 


a  republic  or  a  monarchy?  ”  “A  republic,”  replied 
the  doctor,  “if  you  can  keep  it.” 

The  increase  of  powers  accruing  to  the  executive 
office  necessitated  placing  a  corresponding  check 
upon  the  exercise  of  those  powers.  The  obvious 
method  was  to  render  the  executive  subject  to  im¬ 
peachment,  and  it  was  also  readily  agreed  that  his 
veto  might  be  overruled  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of 
Congress;  but  some  further  safeguards  were  neces¬ 
sary,  and  the  whole  question  accordingly  turned 
upon  the  method  of  his  election  and  the  length  of 
his  term.  In  the  course  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
Convention,  at  several  different  times,  the  mem¬ 
bers  voted  in  favor  of  an  appointment  by  the  na¬ 
tional  legislature,  but  they  also  voted  against 
it.  Once  they  voted  for  a  system  of  electors  cho¬ 
sen  by  the  State  legislatures  and  twice  they  voted 
against  such  a  system.  Three  times  they  voted  to 
reconsider  the  whole  question.  It  is  no  wonder 
that  Gerry  should  say:  “We  seem  to  be  entirely 
at  a  loss.” 

So  it  came  to  the  end  of  August,  with  most  of  the 
other  matters  disposed  of  and  with  the  patience  of 
the  delegates  worn  out  by  the  long  strain  of  four 
weeks’  close  application.  During  the  discussions  it 
had  become  apparent  to  every  one  that  an  election 


136  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


of  the  President  by  the  people  would  give  a  decided 
advantage  to  the  large  States,  so  that  again  there 
was  arising  the  divergence  between  the  large  and 
small  States.  In  order  to  hasten  matters  to  a  con¬ 
clusion,  this  and  all  other  vexing  details  upon  which 
the  Convention  could  not  agree  were  turned  over  to 
a  committee  made  up  of  a  member  from  each  State. 
It  was  this  committee  which  pointed  the  way  to  a 
compromise  by  which  the  choice  of  the  executive 
was  to  be  entrusted  to  electors  chosen  in  each  State 
as  its  legislature  might  direct.  The  electors  were 
to  be  equal  in  number  to  the  State’s  representation 
in  Congress,  including  both  senators  and  represen¬ 
tatives,  and  in  each  State  they  were  to  meet  and  to 
vote  for  two  persons,  one  of  whom  should  not  be  an 
inhabitant  of  that  State.  The  votes  were  to  be 
listed  and  sent  to  Congress,  and  the  person  who  had 
received  the  greatest  number  of  votes  was  to  be 
President,  provided  such  a  number  was  a  majority 
of  all  the  electors.  In  case  of  a  tie  the  Senate  was 
to  choose  between  the  candidates  and,  if  no  one  had 
a  majority,  the  Senate  was  to  elect  “from  the  five 
highest  on  the  list.” 

This  method  of  voting  would  have  given  the 
large  States  a  decided  advantage,  of  course,  in  that 
they  would  appoint  the  greater  number  of  electors, 


FINISHING  THE  WORK 


137 


but  it  was  not  believed  that  this  system  would 
ordinarily  result  in  a  majority  of  votes  being  cast 
for  one  man.  Apparently  no  one  anticipated  the 
formation  of  political  parties  which  would  concen¬ 
trate  the  votes  upon  one  or  another  candidate.  It 
w’as  rather  expected  that  in  the  great  majority  of 
cases — “  nineteen  times  in  twenty,”  one  of  the  dele¬ 
gates  said  —  there  would  be  several  candidates  and 
that  the  selection  from  those  candidates  would  fall 
to  the  Senate,  in  which  all  the  States  were  equally 
represented  and  the  small  States  were  in  the  major¬ 
ity.  But  since  the  Senate  shared  so  many  powers 
with  the  executive,  it  seemed  better  to  transfer  the 
right  of  “eventual  election”  to  the  House  of  Repre¬ 
sentatives,  where  each  State  was  still  to  have  but 
one  vote.  Had  this  scheme  worked  as  the  design¬ 
ers  expected,  the  interests  of  large  States  and 
small  States  would  have  been  reconciled,  since  in 
effect  the  large  States  would  name  the  candidates 
and,  “nineteen  times  in  twenty,”  the  small  States 
would  choose  from  among  them. 

Apparently  the  question  of  a  third  term  was 
never  considered  by  the  delegates  in  the  Con¬ 
vention.  The  chief  problem  before  them  was  the 
method  of  election.  If  the  President  was  to  be  cho¬ 
sen  by  the  legislature,  he  should  not  be  eligible  to 


138  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

reelection.  On  the  other  hand,  if  there  was  to  be 
some  form  of  popular  election,  an  opportunity  for 
reelection  was  thought  to  be  a  desirable  incentive 
to  good  behavior.  Six  or  seven  years  was  taken  as 
an  acceptable  length  for  a  single  term  and  four 
years  a  convenient  tenure  if  reelection  was  per¬ 
mitted.  It  was  upon  these  considerations  that  the 
term  of  four  years  was  eventually  agreed  upon, 
with  no  restriction  placed  upon  reelection. 

When  it  was  believed  that  a  satisfactory  method 
of  choosing  the  President  had  been  discovered  — 
and  it  is  interesting  to  notice  the  members  of  the 
Convention  later  congratulated  themselves  that  at 
least  this  feature  of  their  government  was  above 
criticism  —  it  was  decided  to  give  still  further  pow¬ 
ers  to  the  President,  such  as  the  making  of  treaties 
and  the  appointing  of  ambassadors  and  judges,  al¬ 
though  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  was 
required,  and  in  the  case  of  treaties  two-thirds  of 
the  members  present  must  consent. 

The  presidency  was  frankly  an  experiment,  the 
success  of  which  would  depend  largely  upon  the 
first  election;  yet  no  one  seems  to  have  been  anx¬ 
ious  about  the  first  choice  of  chief  magistrate,  and 
the  reason  is  not  far  to  seek.  From  the  moment 
the  members  agreed  that  there  should  be  a  single 


FINISHING  THE  WORK 


139 


executive  they  also  agreed  upon  the  man  for  the  po¬ 
sition.  Just  as  Washington  had  been  chosen  unan¬ 
imously  to  preside  over  the  Convention,  so  it  was 
generally  accepted  that  he  would  be  the  first  head 
of  the  new  state.  Such  at  least  was  the  trend  of 
conversation  and  even  of  debate  on  the  floor  of  the 
Convention.  It  indicates  something  of  the  con¬ 
ception  of  the  office  prevailing  at  the  time  that 
Washington,  when  he  became  President,  is  said  to 
have  preferred  the  title,  “His  High  Mightiness,  the 
President  of  the  United  States  and  Protector  of 
their  Liberties.” 

The  members  of  the  Convention  were  plainly 
growing  tired  and  there  are  evidences  of  haste  in 
the  work  of  the  last  few  days.  There  was  a  ten¬ 
dency  to  ride  rough-shod  over  those  whose  tempera¬ 
ments  forced  them  to  demand  modifications  in 
petty  matters.  This  precipitancy  gave  rise  to  con¬ 
siderable  dissatisfaction  and  led  several  delegates 
to  declare  that  they  would  not  sign  the  completed 
document.  But  on  the  whole  the  sentiment  of  the 
Convention  was  overwhelmingly  favorable.  Ac¬ 
cordingly  on  Saturday,  the  8th  of  September,  a  new 
committee  was  appointed,  to  consist  of  five  mem¬ 
bers,  whose  duty  it  was  “to  revise  the  stile  of  and 
arrange  the  articles  which  had  been  agreed  to  by 


140  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


the  House.”  The  committee  was  chosen  by  bal¬ 
lot  and  was  made  up  exclusively  of  friends  of  the 
new  Constitution :  Doctor  Johnson  of  Connecticut, 
Alexander  Hamilton,  who  had  returned  to  Phila¬ 
delphia  to  help  in  finishing  the  work,  Gouverneur 
Morris,  James  Madison,  and  Rufus  King.  On 
Wednesday  the  twelfth,  the  Committee  made  its  re¬ 
port,  the  greatest  credit  for  which  is  probably  to  be 
given  to  Morris,  whose  powers  of  expression  were  so 
greatly  admired.  Another  day  was  spent  in  wait¬ 
ing  for  the  report  to  be  printed.  But  on  Thursday 
this  was  ready,  and  three  days  were  devoted  to  go¬ 
ing  over  carefully  each  article  and  section  and  giv¬ 
ing  the  finishing  touches.  By  Saturday  the  work 
of  the  Convention  was  brought  to  a  close,  and  the 
Constitution  was  then  ordered  to  be  engrossed. 
On  Monday,  the  17th  of  September,  the  Conven¬ 
tion  met  for  the  last  time.  A  few  of  those  present 
being  unwilling  to  sign,  Gouverneur  Morris  again 
cleverly  devised  a  form  which  would  make  the 
action  appear  to  be  unanimous:  “Done  in  Con¬ 
vention  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  states 
present  ...  in  witness  whereof  we  have  here¬ 
unto  subscribed  our  names.”  Thirty-nine  dele¬ 
gates,  representing  twelve  States,  then  signed  the 
Constitution. 


FINISHING  THE  WORK 


141 


When  Charles  Biddle  of  Philadelphia,  who  was 
acquainted  with  most  of  the  members  of  the  Con¬ 
vention,  wrote  his  Autobiography ,  which  was  pub¬ 
lished  in  1802,  he  declared  that  for  his  part  he  con¬ 
sidered  the  government  established  by  the  Consti¬ 
tution  to  be  “the  best  in  the  world,  and  as  perfect 
as  any  human  form  of  government  can  be.”  But 
he  prefaced  that  declaration  with  a  statement  that 
some  of  the  best  informed  members  of  the  Federal 
Convention  had  told  him  “they  did  not  believe  a 
single  member  was  perfectly  satisfied  with  the  Con¬ 
stitution,  but  they  believed  it  was  the  best  they 
could  ever  agree  upon,  and  that  it  was  infinitely 
better  to  have  such  a  one  than  break  up  without 
fixing  on  some  form  of  government,  which  I  believe 
at  one  time  it  was  expected  they  would  have  done.” 

One  of  the  outstanding  characteristics  of  the 
members  of  the  Federal  Convention  was  their  prac¬ 
tical  sagacity.  They  had  a  very  definite  object 
before  them.  No  matter  how  much  the  members 
might  talk  about  democracy  in  theory  or  about  an¬ 
cient  confederacies,  when  it  came  to  action  they  did 
not  go  outside  of  their  own  experience.  The  Con¬ 
stitution  was  devised  to  correct  well-known  defects 
and  it  contained  few  provisions  which  had  not  been 
tested  by  practical  political  experience.  Before 


142  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


the  Convention  met,  some  of  the  leading  men  in  the 
country  had  prepared  lists  of  the  defects  which  ex¬ 
isted  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  and  in  the 
Constitution  practically  every  one  of  these  defects 
was  corrected  and  by  means  which  had  already 
been  tested  in  the  States  and  under  the  Articles  of 
Confederation. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  UNION  ESTABLISHED 

The  course  of  English  history  shows  that  Anglo- 
Saxon  tradition  is  strongly  in  favor  of  observing 
precedents  and  of  trying  to  maintain  at  least  the 
form  of  law,  even  in  revolutions.  When  the  Eng¬ 
lish  people  found  it  impossible  to  bear  with  James 
II  and  made  it  so  uncomfortable  for  him  that  he 
fled  the  country,  they  shifted  the  responsibility 
from  their  own  shoulders  by  charging  him  with 
“breaking  the  original  Contract  between  King  and 
People.”  When  the  Thirteen  Colonies  had  reached 
the  point  where  they  felt  that  they  must  separate 
from  England,  their  spokesman,  Thomas  Jefferson, 
found  the  necessary  justification  in  the  funda¬ 
mental  compact  of  the  first  settlers  “in  the  wilds  of 
America”  where  “the  emigrants  thought  proper  to 
adopt  that  system  of  laws  under  which  they  had 
hitherto  lived  in  the  mother  country”;  and  in  the 

Declaration  of  Independence  he  charged  the  King 

143 


144  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


of  Great  Britain  with  “repeated  injuries  and  usurpa¬ 
tions  all  having  in  direct  object  the  establishment 
of  an  absolute  Tyranny  over  these  States.” 

And  so  it  was  with  the  change  to  the  new  form 
of  government  in  the  United  States,  which  was  ac¬ 
complished  only  by  disregarding  the  forms  pre¬ 
scribed  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation  and  has 
been  called,  therefore,  “the  Revolution  of  1789.” 
From  the  outset  the  new  constitution  was  placed 
under  the  sanction  of  the  old.  The  movement  be¬ 
gan  with  an  attempt,  outwardly  at  least,  to  revise 
the  Articles  of  Confederation  and  in  that  form  was 
authorized  by  Congress.  The  first  breach  with  the 
past  was  made  when  the  proposal  in  the  Virginia 
Resolutions  was  accepted  that  amendments  made 
by  the  Convention  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation 
should  be  submitted  to  assemblies  chosen  by  the 
people  instead  of  to  the  legislatures  of  the  separate 
States.  This  was  the  more  readily  accepted  be¬ 
cause  it  was  believed  that  ratification  by  the  legis¬ 
latures  would  result  in  the  formation  of  a  treaty 
rather  than  in  a  working  instrument  of  government. 
The  next  step  was  to  prevent  the  work  of  the  Con¬ 
vention  from  meeting  the  fate  of  all  previous 
amendments  to  the  Articles  of  Confederation, 
which  had  required  the  consent  of  every  State  in 


THE  UNION  ESTABLISHED  145 

the  Union.  At  the  time  the  committee  of  detail 
made  its  report,  the  Convention  was  ready  to  agree 
that  the  consent  of  all  the  States  was  not  necessary, 
and  it  eventually  decided  that,  when  ratified  by  the 
conventions  of  nine  States,  the  Constitution  should 
go  into  effect  between  the  States  so  ratifying. 

It  was  not  within  the  province  of  the  Convention 
to  determine  what  the  course  of  procedure  should 
be  in  the  individual  States ;  so  it  simply  transmitted 
the  Constitution  to  Congress  and  in  an  accompany¬ 
ing  document,  which  significantly  omitted  any  re¬ 
quest  for  the  approval  of  Congress,  strongly  ex¬ 
pressed  the  opinion  that  the  Constitution  should 
“be  submitted  to  a  convention  of  delegates  chosen 
in  each  state  by  the  people  thereof.”  This  was 
nothing  less  than  indirect  ratification  by  the  people ; 
and,  since  it  was  impossible  to  foretell  in  advance 
which  of  the  States  would  or  would  not  ratify,  the 
original  draft  of  “We,  the  People  of  the  States 
of  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island, 
.  .  /'  was  changed  to  the  phrase  “We,  the  People 
of  the  United  States/’  No  man  of  that  day  could 
imagine  how  significant  this  change  would  appear 

in  the  light  of  later  history. 

\ 

Congress  did  not  receive  the  new  Constitution 
enthusiastically,  yet  after  a  few  days’  discussion 


IO 


146  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


it  unanimously  voted,  eleven  States  being  pres¬ 
ent,  that  the  recommendations  of  the  Convention 
should  be  followed,  and  accordingly  sent  the  docu¬ 
ment  to  the  States,  but  without  a  word  of  approval 
or  disapproval.  On  the  whole  the  document  was 
well  received,  especially  as  it  was  favored  by  the 
upper  class,  who  had  the  ability  and  the  opportu¬ 
nity  for  expression  and  were  in  a  position  to  make 
themselves  heard.  For  a  time  it  looked  as  if  the 
Constitution  would  be  readily  adopted. 

The  contest  over  the  Constitution  in  the  States 
is  usually  taken  as  marking  the  beginning  of  the 
two  great  national  political  parties  in  the  United 
States.  This  was,  indeed,  in  a  way  the  first  great 
national  question  that  could  cause  such  a  division. 
There  had  been,  to  be  sure,  Whigs  and  Tories  in 
America,  reproducing  British  parties,  but  when  the 
trouble  with  the  mother  country  began,  the  suc¬ 
cessive  congresses  of  delegates  were  recognized  and 
attended  only  by  the  so-called  American  Whigs, 
and  after  the  Declaration  of  Independence  the 
name  of  Tory  became  a  reproach,  so  that  with  the 
end  of  the  war  the  Tory  party  disappeared.  After 
the  Revolution  there  were  local  parties  in  the  va¬ 
rious  States,  divided  on  one  and  another  question, 
such  as  that  of  hard  and  soft  money,  and  these  issues 


THE  UNION  ESTABLISHED  147 

had  coincided  in  different  States;  but  they  were 
in  no  sense  national  parties  with  organizations, 
platforms,  and  leaders;  they  were  purely  local,  and 
the  followers  of  one  or  the  other  would  have  denied 
that  they  were  anything  else  than  Whigs.  But  a 
new  issue  was  now  raised.  The  Whig  party  split 
in  two,  new  leaders  appeared,  and  the  elements 
gathered  in  two  main  divisions  —  the  Federalists 
advocating,  and  the  Anti-Federalists  opposing,  the 
adoption  of  the  new  Constitution. 

There  were  differences  of  opinion  over  all  the 
questions  which  had  led  to  the  calling  of  the  Fed¬ 
eral  Convention  and  the  framing  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  and  so  there  was  inevitably  a  division  upon  the 
result  of  the  Convention’s  work.  There  were  those 
who  wanted  national  authority  for  the  suppression 
of  disorder  and  of  what  threatened  to  be  anarchy 
throughout  the  Union;  and  on  the  other  hand  there 
were  those  who  opposed  a  strongly  organized  gov¬ 
ernment  through  fear  of  its  destroying  liberty. 
Especially  debtors  and  creditors  took  opposite 
sides,  and  most  of  the  people  in  the  United  States 
could  have  been  brought  under  one  or  the  other 
category.  The  former  favored  a  system  of  gov¬ 
ernment  and  legislation  which  would  tend  to  re¬ 
lieve  or  postpone  the  payment  of  debts ;  and,  as  that 


148  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


relief  would  come  more  readily  from  the  State  Gov¬ 
ernments,  they  were  naturally  the  friends  of  State 
rights  and  State  authority  and  were  opposed  to  any 
enlargement  of  the  powers  of  the  Federal  Govern¬ 
ment.  On  the  other  hand,  were  those  who  felt  the 
necessity  of  preserving  inviolate  every  private  and 
public  obligation  and  who  saw  that  the  separate 
power  of  the  States  could  not  accomplish  what  was 
necessary  to  sustain  both  public  and  private  cred¬ 
it;  they  were  disposed  to  use  the  resources  of  the 
Union  and  accordingly  to  favor  the  strengthening 
of  the  national  government.  In  nearly  every  State 
there  was  a  struggle  between  these  classes. 

In  Philadelphia  and  the  neighborhood  there  was 
great  enthusiasm  for  the  new  Constitution.  41- 
most  simultaneously  with  the  action  by  Congress, 
and  before  notification  of  it  had  been  received,  a 
motion  was  introduced  in  the  Pennsylvania  As¬ 
sembly  to  call  a  ratifying  convention.  The  Anti- 
Federalists  were  surprised  by  the  suddenness  of 
this  proposal  and  to  prevent  action  absented  them¬ 
selves  from  the  session  of  the  Assembly,  leaving 
that  body  two  short  of  the  necessary  quorum  for 
the  transaction  of  business.  The  excitement  and 
indignation  in  the  city  were  so  great  that  early  the 
next  morning  a  crowd  gathered,  dragged  two  of  the 


THE  UNION  ESTABLISHED 


149 


absentees  from  their  lodgings  to  the  State  House, 
and  held  them  firmly  in  their  places  until  the  roll 
was  called  and  a  quorum  counted,  when  the  House 
proceeded  to  order  a  State  convention.  As  soon 
as  the  news  of  this  vote  got  out,  the  city  gave  itself 
up  to  celebrating  the  event  by  the  suspension  of 
business,  the  ringing  of  church  bells,  and  other 
demonstrations.  The  elections  were  hotly  con¬ 
tested,  but  the  Federalists  were  generally  success¬ 
ful.  The  convention  met  towards  the  end  of  No¬ 
vember  and,  after  three  weeks  of  futile  discussion, 
mainly  upon  trivial  matters  and  the  meaning  of 
words,  ratified  the  Constitution  on  the  12th  of  De¬ 
cember,  by  a  vote  of  forty-six  to  twenty-three. 
Again  the  city  of  Philadelphia  celebrated. 

Pennsylvania  was  the  first  State  to  call  a  conven¬ 
tion,  but  its  final  action  was  anticipated  by  Dela¬ 
ware,  where  the  State  convention  met  and  ratified 
the  Constitution  by  unanimous  vote  on  the  7th  of 
December.  The  New  Jersey  convention  spent  only 
a  week  in  discussion  and  then  voted,  also  unani¬ 
mously,  for  ratification  on  the  18th  of  December. 
The  next  State  to  ratify  was  Georgia,  where  the 
Constitution  was  approved  without  a  dissenting 
vote  on  January  2,  1788.  Connecticut  followed 
immediately  and,  after  a  session  of  only  five  days, 


150  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

declared  itself  in  favor  of  the  Constitution,  on  the 
9th  of  January,  by  a  vote  of  over  three  to  one. 

The  results  of  the  campaign  for  ratification  thus 
far  were  most  gratifying  to  the  Federalists,  but  the 
issue  was  not  decided.  With  the  exception  of 
Pennsylvania,  the  States  which  had  acted  were  of 
lesser  importance,  and,  until  Massachusetts,  New 
York,  and  Virginia  should  declare  themselves,  the 
outcome  would  be  in  doubt.  The  convention  of 
Massachusetts  met  on  the  same  day  that  the  Con¬ 
necticut  convention  adjourned.  The  sentiment  of 
Boston,  k  like  that  of  Philadelphia,  was  strongly 
Federalist;  but  the  outlying  districts,  and  in  par¬ 
ticular  the  western  part  of  the  State,  where  Shays’ 
Rebellion  had  broken  out,  were  to  be  counted  in  the 
opposition.  There  were  3 55  delegates  who  took 
part  in  the  Massachusetts  convention,  a  larger 
number  than  was  chosen  in  any  of  the  other  States, 
and  the  majority  seemed  to  be  opposed  to  ratifica¬ 
tion.  The  division  was  close,  however,  and  it  was 
believed  that  the  attitude  of  two  men  would  deter¬ 
mine  the  result.  One  of  these  was  Governor  John 
Hancock,  who  was  chosen  chairman  of  the  conven¬ 
tion  but  who  did  not  attend  the  sessions  at  the  out¬ 
set,  as  he  was  confined  to  his  house  by  an  attack  of 
gout,  which,  it  was  maliciously  said,  would  disappear 


THE  UNION  ESTABLISHED 


151 


as  soon  as  it  was  known  which  way  the  majority 
of  the  convention  would  vote.  The  other  was 
Samuel  Adams,  a  genuine  friend  of  liberty,  who  was 
opposed  on  principle  to  the  general  theory  of  the 
government  set  forth  in  the  Constitution.  “I 
stumble  at  the  threshold/’  he  wrote.  “I  meet  with 
a  national  government,  instead  of  a  federal  union 
of  sovereign  states.”  But,  being  a  shrewd  poli¬ 
tician,  Adams  did  not  commit  himself  openly  and, 
when  the  tradesmen  of  Boston  declared  themselves 
in  favor  of  ratification,  he  was  ready  to  yield  his 
personal  opinion. 

There  were  many  delegates  in  the  Massachusetts 
convention  who  felt  that  it  was  better  to  amend  the 
document  before  them  than  to  try  another  Federal 
Convention,  when  as  good  an  instrument  might  not 
be  devised.  If  this  group  were  added  to  those  who 
were  ready  to  accept  the  Constitution  as  it  stood, 
they  would  make  a  majority  in  favor  of  the  new 
government.  But  the  delay  involved  in  amending 
was  regarded  as  dangerous,  and  it  was  argued  that, 
as  the  Constitution  made  ample  provision  for 
changes,  it  would  be  safer  and  wiser  to  rely  upon 
that  method.  The  question  was  one,  therefore,  of 
immediate  or  future  amendment.  Pressure  was  ac¬ 
cordingly  brought  to  bear  upon  Governor  Hancock 


152  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


and  intimations  were  made  to  him  of  future  politi¬ 
cal  preferment,  until  he  was  persuaded  to  propose 
immediate  ratification  of  the  Constitution,  with  an 
urgent  recommendation  of  such  amendments  as 
would  remove  the  objections  of  the  Massachusetts 
people.  When  this  proposal  was  approved  by 
Adams,  its  success  was  assured,  and  a  few  days 
later,  on  the  6th  of  February,  the  convention  voted 
187  to  168  in  favor  of  ratification.  Nine  amend¬ 
ments,  largely  in  the  nature  of  a  bill  of  rights,  were 
then  demanded,  and  the  Massachusetts  representa¬ 
tives  in  Congress  were  enjoined  “at  all  times,  .  .  . 
to  exert  all  their  influence,  and  use  all  reasonable 
and  legal  methods,  To  obtain  a  ratification  of  the 
said  alterations  and  provisions.”  On  the  very  day 
this  action  was  taken,  Jefferson  wrote  from  Paris  to 
Madison:  “I  wish  with  all  my  soul  that  the  nine 
first  conventions  may  accept  the  new  Constitution, 
to  secure  to  us  the  good  it  contains;  but  I  equally 
wish  that  the  four  latest,  whichever  they  may  be, 
may  refuse  to  accede  to  it  till  a  declaration  of  rights 

be  annexed.” 

» 

Boston  proceeded  to  celebrate  as  Philadelphia, 
and  Benjamin  Lincoln  wrote  to  Washington,  on 
the  9th  of  February,  enclosing  an  extract  from  the 
local  paper  describing  the  event: 


THE  UNION  ESTABLISHED 


153 


By  the  paper  your  Excellency  will  observe  some  ac¬ 
count  of  the  parade  of  the  Eighth  the  printer  had  by  no 
means  time  eno  to  do  justice  to  the  subject.  To  give 
you  some  idea  how  far  he  has  been  deficient  I  will  men¬ 
tion  an  observation  I  heard  made  by  a  Lady  the  last 
evening  who  saw  the  whole  that  the  description  in  the 
paper  would  no  more  compare  with  the  original  than 
the  light  of  the  faintest  star  would  with  that  of  the  Sun  • 
fortunately  for  us  the  whole  ended  without  the  least 
disorder  and  the  town  during  the  whole  evening  was, 
so  far  as  I  could  observe  perfectly  quiet. 1 

i 

He  added  another  paragraph  which  he  later  struck 
out  as  being  of  little  importance;  but  it  throws  an 
interesting  sidelight  upon  the  customs  of  the  time. 

The  Gentlemen  provided  at  Faneul  Hall  some  bis¬ 
cuit  &  cheese  four  q-  Casks  of  wine  three  barrels  & 
two  hog5  of  punch  the  moment  they  found  that  the 
people  had  drank  sufficiently  means  were  taken  to 
overset  the  two  hog?  punch  this  being  done  the  com¬ 
pany  dispersed  and  the  day  ended  most  agreeably.2 

Maryland  came  next.  When  the  Federal  Con¬ 
vention  was  breaking  up,  Luther  Martin  was 
speaking  of  the  new  system  of  government  to  his 
colleague,  Daniel  of  St.  Thomas  Jenifer,  and  ex¬ 
claimed:  “I’ll  be  hanged  if  ever  the  people  of 
Maryland  agree  to  it!”  To  which  his  colleague 

1  Documentary  History,  vol.  iv,  pp.  488-490.  2  Ibid. 


154  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


retorted:  “I  advise  you  to  stay  in  Philadelphia,  lest 
you  should  be  hanged.”  And  Jenifer  proved  to  be 
right,  for  in  Maryland  the  Federalists  obtained 
control  of  the  convention  and,  by  a  vote  of  63  to  11, 
ratified  the  Constitution  on  the  26th  of  April. 

In  South  Carolina,  which  was  the  Southern  State 
next  in  importance  to  Virginia,  the  compromise  on 
the  slave  trade  proved  to  be  one  of  the  deciding 
factors  in  determining  public  opinion.  When  the 
elections  were  held,  they  resulted  in  an  overwhelm¬ 
ing  majority  for  the  Federalists,  so  that  after  a  ses¬ 
sion  of  less  than  two  weeks  the  convention  ratified 
the  Constitution,  on  the  28th  of  May,  by  a  vote  of 
over  two  to  one. 

The  only  apparent  setback  which  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution  had  thus  far  received  was  in  New 
Hampshire,  where  the  convention  met  early  in 
February  and  then  adjourned  until  June  to  see 
what  the  other  States  might  do.  But  this  delay 
proved  to  be  of  no  consequence  for,  when  the  time 
came  for  the  second  meeting  of  the  New  Hamp¬ 
shire  delegates,  eight  States  had  already  acted  fa¬ 
vorably  and  adoption  was  regarded  as  a  certainty. 
This  was  sufficient  to  put  a  stop  to  any  further 
waiting,  and  New  Hampshire  added  its  name  to  the 
list  on  the  21st  of  June;  but  the  division  of  opinion 


THE  UNION  ESTABLISHED 


155 


was  fairly  well  represented  by  the  smallness  of  the 
majority,  the  vote  standing  57  to  46. 

Nine  States  had  now  ratified  the  Constitution 
and  it  was  to  go  into  effect  among  them.  But  the 
support  of  Virginia  and  New  York  was  of  so  much 
importance  that  their  decisions  were  awaited  with 
uneasiness.  In  Virginia,  in  spite  of  the  support  of 
such  men  as  Washington  and  Madison,  the  senti¬ 
ment  for  and  against  the  Constitution  was  fairly 
evenly  divided,  and  the  opposition  numbered  in  its 
ranks  other  names  of  almost  equal  influence,  such 
as  Patrick  Henry  and  George  Mason.  Feeling  ran 
high;  the  contest  was  a  bitter  one  and,  even  after 
the  elections  had  been  held  and  the  convention  had 
opened,  early  in  June,  the  decision  was  in  doubt 
and  remained  in  doubt  until  the  very  end.  The 
situation  was,  in  one  respect  at  least,  similar  to  that 
which  had  existed  in  Massachusetts,  in  that  it  was 
possible  to  get  a  substantial  majority  in  favor  of  the 
Constitution  provided  certain  amendments  were 
made.  The  same  arguments  were  used,  strength¬ 
ened  on  the  one  side  by  what  other  States  had  done, 
and  on  the  other  side  by  the  plea  that  now  was  the 
time  to  hold  out  for  amendments.  The  example  of 
Massachusetts,  however,  seems  to  have  been  de¬ 
cisive,  and  on  the  25th  of  June,  four  days  later  than 


156  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


New  Hampshire,  the  Virginia  convention  voted  to 
ratify,  “under  the  conviction  that  whatsoever  im¬ 
perfections  may  exist  in  the  Constitution  ought 
rather  to  be  examined  in  the  mode  prescribed  there¬ 
in,  than  to  bring  the  Union  into  danger  by  delay, 

v 

with  a  hope  of  obtaining  amendments  previous  to 
the  ratification.” 

When  the  New  York  convention  began  its  ses¬ 
sions  on  the  17th  of  June,  it  is  said  that  more  than 
two-thirds  of  the  delegates  were  Anti-Federalist  in 
sentiment.  How  a  majority  in  favor  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution  was  obtained  has  never  been  adequately 
explained,  but  it  is  certain  that  the  main  credit  for 
the  achievement  belongs  to  Alexander  Hamilton. 
He  had  early  realized  how  greatly  it  would  help  the 
prospects  of  the  Constitution  if  thinking  people 
could  be  brought  to  an  appreciation  of  the  import¬ 
ance  and  value  of  the  new  form  of  government.  In 
order  to  reach  the  intelligent  public  everywhere, 
but  particularly  in  New  York,  he  projected  a  series 
of  essays  which  should  be  published  in  the  news¬ 
papers,  setting  forth  the  aims  and  purposes  of  the 
Constitution.  He  secured  the  assistance  of  Madi¬ 
son  and  Jay,  and  before  the  end  of  October,  1787, 
published  the  first  essay  in  The  Independent  Gazet¬ 
teer.  From  that  time  on  these  papers  continued  to 


1 


THE  UNION  ESTABLISHED 


157 


be  printed  over  the  signature  of  “Publius,”  some¬ 
times  as  many  as  three  or  four  in  a  week.  There 
were  eighty-five  numbers  altogether,  which  have 
ever  since  been  known  as  The  Federalist.  Of  these 
approximately  fifty  were  the  work  of  Hamilton, 
Madison  wrote  about  thirty  and  Jay  five.  Al¬ 
though  the  essays  were  widely  copied  in  other 
journals,  and  form  for  us  the  most  important  com¬ 
mentary  on  the  Constitution,  making  what  is  re¬ 
garded  as  one  of  America’s  greatest  books,  it  is 
doubtful  how  much  immediate  influence  they  had. 
Certainly  in  the  New  York  convention  itself  Ham¬ 
ilton’s  personal  influence  was  a  stronger  force.  His 
arguments  were  both  eloquent  and  cogent,  and  met 
every  objection;  and  his  efforts  to  win  over  the  op¬ 
position  were  unremitting.  The  news  which  came 
by  express  riders  from  New  Hampshire  and  then 
from  Virginia  were  also  deciding  factors,  for  New 
York  could  not  afford  to  remain  out  of  the  new 
Union  if  it  was  to  embrace  States  on  either  side. 
And  yet  the  debate  continued,  as  the  opposition  was 
putting  forth  every  effort  to  make  ratification  con¬ 
ditional  upon  certain  amendments  being  adopted. 
But  Hamilton  resolutely  refused  to  make  any  con¬ 
cessions  and  at  length  was  successful  in  persuading 
the  New  York  convention,  by  a  vote  of  30  against 


158  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


27,  on  the  26th  of  July,  to  follow  the  example  of 
Massachusetts  and  Virginia  and  to  ratify  the  Con¬ 
stitution  with  merely  a  recommendation  of  future 
amendments. 

The  satisfaction  of  the  country  at  the  outcome  of 
the  long  and  momentous  struggle  over  the  adoption 
of  the  new  government  was  unmistakable.  Even 
before  the  action  of  New  York  had  been  taken,  the 
Fourth  of  July  was  made  the  occasion  for  a  great 
celebration  throughout  the  United  States,  both  as 
the  anniversary  of  independence  and  as  the  con¬ 
summation  of  the  Union  by  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution. 

The  general  rejoicing  was  somewhat  tempered, 
however,  by  the  reluctance  of  North  Carolina 
and  Rhode  Island  to  come  under  “the  new  roof.” 
Had  the  convention  which  met  on  the  21st  of 
July  in  North  Carolina  reached  a  vote,  it  would 
probably  have  defeated  the  Constitution,  but  it  was 
doubtless  restrained  by  the  action  of  New  York 
and  adjourned  without  coming  to  a  decision.  A 
second  convention  was  called  in  September,  1789, 
and  in  the  meantime  the  new  government  had  come 
into  operation  and  was  bringing  pressure  to  bear 
upon  the  recalcitrant  States  which  refused  to  aban¬ 
don  the  old  union  for  the  new.  One  of  the  earliest 


i 


THE  UNION  ESTABLISHED 


159 


acts  passed  by  Congress  was  a  revenue  act,  levying 
duties  upon  foreign  goods  imported,  which  were 
made  specifically  to  apply  to  imports  from  Rhode 
Island  and  North  Carolina.  This  was  sufficient 
for  North  Carolina,  and  on  November  21, 1789,  the 
convention  ratified  the  Constitution.  But  Rhode 
Island  still  held  out.  A  convention  of  that  State 
was  finally  called  to  meet  in  March,  1790,  but  ac¬ 
complished  nothing  and  avoided  a  decision  by  ad¬ 
journing  until  May.  The  Federal  Government 
then  proceeded  to  threaten  drastic  measures  by 
taking  up  a  bill  which  authorized  the  President  to 
suspend  all  commercial  intercourse  with  Rhode 
Island  and  to  demand  of  that  State  the  payment 
of  its  share  of  the  Federal  debt.  The  bill  passed 
the  Senate  but  stopped  there,  for  the  State  gave  in 
and  ratified  the  Constitution  on  the  29th  of  May. 
Two  weeks  later  Ellsworth,  who  was  now  United 
States  Senator  from  Connecticut,  wrote  that 
Rhode  Island  had  been  ‘‘brought  into  the  Union, 
and  by  a  pretty  cold  measure  in  Congress,  which 
would  have  exposed  me  to  some  censure,  had  it  not 
produced  the  effect  which  I  expected  it  would  and 
which  in  fact  it  has  done.  But  ‘all  is  well  that  ends 
well.’  The  Constitution  is  now  adopted  by  all  the 
States  and  I  have  much  satisfaction,  and  perhaps 


160  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


some  vanity,  in  seeing,  at  length,  a  great  work  fin¬ 
ished,  for  which  I  have  long  labored  incessantly/'1 

Perhaps  the  most  striking  feature  of  these  con¬ 
ventions  is  the  trivial  character  of  the  objections 
that  were  raised.  Some  of  the  arguments,  it  is 
true,  went  to  the  very  heart  of  the  matter  and  con¬ 
sidered  the  fundamental  principles  of  government. 
It  is  possible  to  tolerate  and  even  to  sympathize 
with  a  man  who  declared: 

Among  other  deformities  the  Constitution  has  an  aw¬ 
ful  squinting.  It  squints  toward  monarchy;  .  .  . 
your  president  may  easily  become  a  king.  ...  If 
your  American  chief  be  a  man  of  ambition  and  ability 
how  easy  it  is  for  him  to  render  himself  absolute.  We 
shall  have  a  king.  The  army  will  salute  him  monarch. 1 

But  it  is  hard  to  take  seriously  a  delegate  who 
asked  permission  “to  make  a  short  apostrophe  to 
liberty,”  and  then  delivered  himself  of  this  bathos: 

O  liberty!  —  thou  greatest  good  —  thou  fairest  prop¬ 
erty  —  with  thee  I  wish  to  live  —  with  thee  I  wish  to 
die !  —  Pardon  me  if  I  drop  a  tear  on  the  peril  to  which 
she  is  exposed;  I  cannot,  sir,  see  this  brightest  of  jewels 
tarnished!  a  jewel  worth  ten  thousand  worlds!  and 
shall  we  part  with  it  so  soon?  Ono!2 

1  “  Connecticut’s  Ratification  of  the  Federal  Constitution,” 
by  B.  C.  Steiner,  in  Proceedings  of  the  American  Antiquarian 
Society,  April,  1915,  pp.  88-89. 

2  Elliot’s  Debates  on  the  Federal  Constitution,  vol.  iii,  p.  144. 


THE  UNION  ESTABLISHED 


161 


There  might  be  some  reason  in  objecting  to  the 
excessive  power  vested  in  Congress;  but  what  is  one 
to  think  of  the  fear  that  imagined  the  greatest  point 
of  danger  to  lie  in  the  ten  miles  square  which  later 
became  the  District  of  Columbia,  because  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  might  erect  a  fortified  stronghold  which 
would  be  invincible?  Again,  in  the  light  of  subse¬ 
quent  events  it  is  laughable  to  find  many  protesting 
that,  although  each  house  was  required  to  keep  a 
journal  of  proceedings,  it  was  only  required  “ from 
time  to  time  to  publish  the  same,  excepting  such  parts 
as  may  in  their  judgment  require  secrecy.”  All  sorts 
of  personal  charges  were  made  against  those  who 
were  responsible  for  the  framing  of  the  Constitution. 
Hopkinson  wrote  to  Jefferson  in  April,  1788: 

You  will  be  surprised  when  I  tell  you  that  our  public 
News  Papers  have  anounced  General  Washington  to  be 
a  Fool  influenced  &  lead  by  that  Knave  Dr.  Franklin, 
who  is  a  public  Defaulter  for  Millions  of  Dollars,  that 
Mr.  Morris  has  defrauded  the  Public  out  of  as  many 
Millions  as  you  please  &  that  they  are  to  cover  their 
frauds  by  this  new  Government. 1 

All  things  considered,  it  is  difficult  to  avoid  the  con¬ 
clusion  that  such  critics  and  detractors  were  trying 
to  find  excuses  for  their  opposition. 

1  Documentary  History  of  the  Constitution,  vol.  iv,  p.  563. 


ii 


162  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


The  majorities  in  the  various  conventions  can 
hardly  be  said  really  to  represent  the  people  of  their 
States,  for  only  a  small  percentage  of  the  people 
had  voted  in  electing  them;  they  were  representa¬ 
tive  rather  of  the  propertied  upper  class.  This  cir¬ 
cumstance  has  given  rise  to  the  charge  that  the 
Constitution  was  framed  and  adopted  by  men  who 
were  interested  in  the  protection  of  property,  in  the 
maintenance  of  the  value  of  government  securities, 
and  in  the  payment  of  debts  which  had  been  in¬ 
curred  by  the  individual  States  in  the  course  of  the 
Revolution.  Property-holders  were  unquestion-  4 
ably  assisted  by  the  mere  establishment  of  a  strong 
government.  The  creditor  class  seemed  to  require 
some  special  provision  and,  when  the  powers  of 
Congress  were  under  consideration  in  the  Federal 
Convention,  several  of  the  members  argued  strong¬ 
ly  for  a  positive  injunction  on  Congress  to  assume 
obligations  of  the  States.  The  chief  objection  to 
this  procedure  seemed  to  be  based  upon  the  fear  of 

benefiting  speculators  rather  than  the  legitimate 

/ 

creditors,  and  the  matter  was  finally  compromised 
by  providing  that  all  debts  should  be  “as  valid 
against  the  United  States  under  this  Constitution 
as  under  the  Confederation.”  The  charge  that  the 
Constitution  was  framed  and  its  adoption  obtained 


THE  UNION  ESTABLISHED 


163 


by  men  of  property  and  wealth  is  undoubtedly 
true,  but  it  is  a  mistake  to  attribute  unworthy  mo¬ 
tives  to  them.  The  upper  classes  in  the  United 
States  were  generally  people  of  wealth  and  so 
would  be  the  natural  holders  of  government  secur¬ 
ities.  They  were  undoubtedly  acting  in  self-pro¬ 
tection,  but  the  responsibility  rested  upon  them 
to  take  the  lead.  They  were  acting  indeed  for 
the  public  interest  in  the  largest  sense,  for  condi¬ 
tions  in  the  United  States  were  such  that  every 
man  might  become  a  landowner  and  the  people  in 
general  therefore  wished  to  have  property  rights 
protected. 

In  the  autumn  of  1788  the  Congress  of  the  old 
Confederation  made  testamentary  provision  for  its 
heir  by  voting  that  presidential  electors  should  be 
chosen  on  the  first  Wednesday  in  January,  1789; 
that  these  electors  should  meet  and  cast  their  votes 
for  President  on  the  first  Wednesday  in  February; 
and  that  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives 
should  assemble  on  the  first  Wednesday  in  March. 
It  was  also  decided  that  the  seat  of  government 
should  be  in  the  City  of  New  York  until  otherwise 
ordered  by  Congress.  In  accordance  with  this  pro¬ 
cedure,  the  requisite  elections  were  held,  and  the 
new  government  was  duly  installed.  It  happened 


164  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


in  1789  that  the  first  Wednesday  in  March  was 
the  fourth  day  of  that  month,  which  thereby  be¬ 
came  the  date  for  the  beginning  of  each  subsequent 
administration. 

The  acid  test  of  efficiency  was  still  to  be  applied 
to  the  new  machinery  of  government.  But  Amer¬ 
icans  then,  as  now,  were  an  adaptable  people,  with 
political  genius,  and  they  would  have  been  able  to 
make  almost  any  form  of  government  succeed.  If 
the  Federal  Convention  had  never  met,  there  is 
good  reason  for  believing  that  the  Articles  of  Con¬ 
federation,  with  some  amendments,  would  have 
been  made  to  work.  The  success  of  the  new  gov¬ 
ernment  was  therefore  in  a  large  measure  depend¬ 
ent  upon  the  favor  of  the  people.  If  they  wished 
to  do  so,  they  could  make  it  win  out  in  spite  of  ob¬ 
stacles.  In  other  words,  the  new  government  would 
succeed  exactly  to  the  extent  to  which  the  people 
stood  back  of  it.  This  was  the  critical  moment 
when  the  slowly  growing  prosperity,  described  at 
length  and  emphasized  in  the  previous  chapters, 
produced  one  of  its  most  important  effects.  In 
June,  1788,  Washington  wrote  to  Lafayette: 

I  expect,  that  many  blessings  will  be  attributed  to 
our  new  government,  which  are  now  taking  their  rise 
from  that  industry  and  frugality  into  the  practice  of 


THE  UNION  ESTABLISHED 


165 


which  the  people  have  been  forced  from  necessity.  I 
really  believe  that  there  never  was  so  much  labour  and 
economy  to  be  found  before  in  the  country  as  at  the 
present  moment.  If  they  persist  in  the  habits  they  are 
acquiring,  the  good  effects  will  soon  be  distinguishable. 
When  the  people  shall  find  themselves  secure  under  an 
energetic  government,  when  foreign  Nations  shall  be 
disposed  to  give  us  equal  advantages  in  commerce  from 
dread  of  retaliation,  when  the  burdens  of  the  war  shall 
be  in  a  manner  done  away  by  the  sale  of  western  lands, 
when  the  seeds  of  happiness  which  are  sown  here  shall 
begin  to  expand  themselves,  and  when  every  one  (un¬ 
der  his  own  vine  and  fig-tree)  shall  begin  to  taste  the 
fruits  of  freedom  —  then  all  these  blessings  (for  all 
these  blessings  will  come)  will  be  referred  to  the  foster¬ 
ing  influence  of  the  new  government.  Whereas  many 
causes  will  have  conspired  to  produce  them. 

A  few  months  later  a  similar  opinion  was  expressed 
by  Crevecoeur  in  writing  to  Jefferson : 

Never  was  so  great  a  change  in  the  opinion  of  the 
best  people  as  has  happened  these  five  years;  almost 
everybody  feels  the  necessity  of  coercive  laws,  gov¬ 
ernment,  union,  industry,  and  labor.  .  .  .  The  ex¬ 
ports  of  this  country  have  singularly  increased  within 
these  two  years,  and  the  imports  have  decreased  in 
proportion. 

The  new  Federal  Government  was  fortunate  in  be¬ 
ginning  its  career  at  the  moment  when  returning 


166  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


prosperity  was  predisposing  the  people  to  think 
well  of  it.  The  inauguration  of  Washington  marked 
the  opening  of  a  new  era  for  the  people  of  the 
United  States  of  America. 


APPENDIX1 


THE  DECLARATION  OF  INDEPENDENCE  — 

1776 

In  Congress,  July  4,  1776 

The  unanimous  Declaration  of  the  thirteen  united  States 

of  America 

When  in  the  Course  of  human  events,  it  becomes 
necessary  for  one  people  to  dissolve  the  political  bands 
which  have  connected  them  with  another,  and  to  as¬ 
sume  among  the  Powers  of  the  earth,  the  separate  and 
equal  station  to  which  the  Laws  of  Nature  and  of  Na¬ 
ture’s  God  entitle  them,  a  decent  respect  to  the  opin¬ 
ions  of  mankind  requires  that  they  should  declare  the 
causes  which  impel  them  to  the  separation. 

We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all  men 
are  created  equal,  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Crea¬ 
tor  with  certain  unalienable  Rights,  that  among  these 
are  Life,  Liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  Happiness.  That 
to  secure  these  rights,  Governments  are  instituted 
among  Men,  deriving  their  just  powers  from  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  governed.  That  whenever  any  Form  of  Gov¬ 
ernment  becomes  destructive  of  these  ends,  it  is  the 

1  The  documents  in  this  Appendix  follow  the  text  of  the  Revised 
Statutes  of  the  United  States,  Second  Edition,  1878. 

167 


168  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


Right  of  the  People  to  alter  or  to  abolish  it,  and  to  in¬ 
stitute  new  Government,  laying  its  foundation  on  such 
principles  and  organizing  its  powers  in  such  form,  as  to 
them  shall  seem  most  likely  to  effect  their  Safety  and 
Happiness.  Prudence,  indeed,  will  dictate  that  Gov¬ 
ernments  long  established  should  not  be  changed  for 
light  and  transient  causes;  and  accordingly  all  expe¬ 
rience  hath  shown,  that  mankind  are  more  disposed  to 
suffer,  while  evils  are  sufferable,  than  to  right  them¬ 
selves  by  abolishing  the  forms  to  which  they  are  accus¬ 
tomed.  But  when  a  long  train  of  abuses  and  usurpa¬ 
tions,  pursuing  invariably  the  same  Object  evinces  a 
design  to  reduce  them  under  absolute  Despotism,  it  is 
their  right,  it  is  their  duty,  to  throw  off  such  Govern¬ 
ment,  and  to  provide  new  Guards  for  their  future  se¬ 
curity.  —  Such  has  been  the  patient  sufferance  of  these 
Colonies;  and  such  is  now  the  necessity  which  con¬ 
strains  them  to  alter  their  former  Systems  of  Govern¬ 
ment.  The  history  of  the  present  King  of  Great  Brit¬ 
ain  is  a  history  of  repeated  injuries  and  usurpations, 
all  having  in  direct  object  the  establishment  of  an  ab¬ 
solute  Tyranny  over  these  States.  To  prove  this,  let 
Facts  be  submitted  to  a  candid  world. 

He  has  refused  his  Assent  to  Laws,  the  most  whole¬ 
some  and  necessary  for  the  public  good. 

He  has  forbidden  his  Governors  to  pass  Laws  of  im¬ 
mediate  and  pressing  importance,  unless  suspended  in 
their  operation  till  his  Assent  should  be  obtained;  and 
when  so  suspended,  he  has  utterly  neglected  to  attend 
to  them.  , 

He  has  refused  to  pass  other  Laws  for  the  accommo¬ 
dation  of  large  districts  of  people,  unless  those  people 
would  relinquish  the  right  of  Representation  in  the 


DECLARATION  OF  INDEPENDENCE  169 


Legislature,  a  right  inestimable  to  them  and  formidable 
to  tyrants  only. 

He  has  called  together  legislative  bodies  at  places 
unusual,  uncomfortable,  and  distant  from  the  deposi¬ 
tory  of  their  Public  Records,  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
fatiguing  them  into  compliance  with  his  measures. 

He  has  dissolved  Representative  Plouses  repeatedly, 
for  opposing  with  manly  firmness  his  invasions  on  the 
rights  of  the  people. 

He  has  refused  for  a  long  time,  after  such  dissolu¬ 
tions,  to  cause  others  to  be  elected;  whereby  the  Legis¬ 
lative  Powers,  incapable  of  Annihilation,  have  returned 
to  the  People  at  large  for  their  exercise;  the  State  re¬ 
maining  in  the  mean  time  exposed  to  'all  the  dangers 
of  invasion  from  without,  and  convulsions  within. 

He  has  endeavoured  to  prevent  the  population  of 
these  States;  for  that  purpose  obstructing  the  Laws  for 
Naturalization  of  Foreigners;  refusing  to  pass  others 
to  encourage  their  migration  hither,  and  raising  the 
conditions  of  new  Appropriations  of  Lands. 

He  has  obstructed  the  Administration  of  Justice,  by 
refusing  his  Assent  to  Laws  for  establishing  Judiciary 
Powers. 

He  has  made  Judges  dependent  on  his  Will  alone, 
for  the  tenure  of  their  offices,  and  the  amount  and 
payment  of  their  salaries. 

He  has  erected  a  multitude  of  New  Offices,  and  sent 
hither  swarms  of  Officers  to  harrass  our  People,  and  eat 
out  their  substance. 

He  has  kept  among  us,  in  times  of  peace,  Standing 
Armies  without  the  Consent  of  our  legislature. 

He  has  affected  to  render  the  Military  independent 
of  and  superior  to  the  Civil  Power. 


170  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


He  has  combined  with  others  to  subject  us  to  a  juris¬ 
diction  foreign  to  our  constitution,  and  unacknowl¬ 
edged  by  our  laws;  giving  his  Assent  to  their  acts  of 
pretended  Legislation : 

For  quartering  large  bodies  of  armed  troops  among  us : 

For  protecting  them,  by  a  mock  Trial,  from  Punish¬ 
ment  for  any  Murders  which  they  should  commit  on 
the  Inhabitants  of  these  States: 

For  cutting  off  our  Trade  with  all  parts  of  the  world : 

For  imposing  taxes  on  us  without  our  Consent: 

For  depriving  us  in  many  cases,  of  the  benefits  of 
Trial  by  Jury: 

For  transporting  us  beyond  Seas  to  be  tried  for 
pretended  offences: 

For  abolishing  the  free  System  of  English  Laws  in  a 
neighbouring  Province,  establishing  therein  an  Arbi¬ 
trary  government,  and  enlarging  its  Boundaries  so  as 
to  render  it  at  once  an  example  and  fit  instrument  for 
introducing  the  same  absolute  rule  into  these  Colonies : 

For  taking  away  our  Charters,  abolishing  our  most 
valuable  Laws,  and  altering  fundamentally  the  Forms 
of  our  Government: 

For  suspending  our  own  Legislature,  and  declaring 
themselves  invested  with  Power  to  legislate  for  us  in 
all  cases  whatsoever. 

He  has  abdicated  Government  here,  by  declaring  us 
out  of  his  Protection  and  waging  War  against  us. 

He  has  plundered  our  seas,  ravaged  our  Coasts, 
burnt  our  towns,  and  destroyed  the  lives  of  our  people. 

He  is  at  this  time  transporting  large  armies  of  foreign 
mercenaries  to  compleat  the  works  of  death,  desola¬ 
tion  and  tyranny,  already  begun  with  circumstances 
of  Cruelty  &  perfidy  scarcely  paralleled  in  the  most 


DECLARATION  OF  INDEPENDENCE  171 


barbarous  ages,  and  totally  unworthy  the  Head  of  a 
civilized  nation. 

He  has  constrained  our  fellow  Citizens  taken  Cap¬ 
tive  on  the  high  Seas  to  bear  Arms  against  their  Coun¬ 
try,  to  become  the  executioners  of  their  friends  and 
Brethren,  or  to  fall  themselves  by  their  Hands. 

He  has  excited  domestic  insurrections  amongst  us, 
and  has  endeavoured  to  bring  on  the  inhabitants  of  our 
frontiers,  the  merciless  Indian  Savages,  whose  known 
rule  of  warfare,  is  an  undistinguished  destruction  of  all 
ages,  sexes  and  conditions. 

In  every  stage  of  these  Oppressions  We  have  Peti¬ 
tioned  for  Redress  in  the  most  humble  terms :  Our  re¬ 
peated  Petitions  have  been  answered  only  by  repeated 
injury.  A  Prince,  whose  character  is  thus  marked  by 
every  act  which  may  define  a  Tyrant,  is  unfit  to  be  the 
ruler  of  a  free  People. 

Nor  have  We  been  wanting  in  attention  to  our  Brit- 
tish  brethren.  We  have  warned  them  from  time  to 
time  of  attempts  by  their  legislature  to  extend  an  un¬ 
warrantable  jurisdiction  over  us.  We  have  reminded 
them  of  the  circumstances  of  our  emigration  and  settle¬ 
ment  here.  We  have  appealed  to  their  native  justice 
and  magnanimity,  and  we  have  conjured  them  by  the 
ties  of  our  common  kindred  to  disavow  these  usurpa¬ 
tions,  which,  would  inevitably  interrupt  our  connec¬ 
tions  and  correspondence!.]  They  too  have  been  deaf 
to  the  voice  of  justice  and  of  consanguinity.  We  must, 
therefore,  acquiesce  in  the  necessity,  which  denounces 
our  Separation,  and  hold  them,  as  we  hold  the  rest  of 
mankind.  Enemies  in  War,  in  Peace  Friends. 

We,  therefore,  the  Representative  of  the  united 
States  of  America,  in  General  Congress,  Assembled, 


172  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


appealing  to  the  Supreme  Judge  of  the  world  for  the 
rectitude  of  our  intentions,  do,  in  the  Name,  and  by 
Authority  of  the  good  People  of  these  Colonies,  sol¬ 
emnly  publish  and  declare,  That  these  United  Colonies 
are,  and  of  Right  ought  to  be  Free  and  Independent 
States;  that  they  are  Absolved  from  all  Allegiance  to 
the  British  Crown,  and  that  all  political  connection  be¬ 
tween  them  and  the  State  of  Great  Britain,  is  and 
ought  to  be  totally  dissolved;  and  that  as  Free  and  In¬ 
dependent  States,  they  have  full  Power  to  levy  War, 
conclude  Peace,  contract  Alliances,  establish  Com¬ 
merce,  and  to  do  all  other  Acts  and  Things  which 
Independent  States  may  of  right  do.  And  for  the 
support  of  this  Declaration,  with  a  firm  reliance 
on  the  Protection  of  Divine  Providence,  we  mutually 
pledge  to  each  other  our  Lives,  our  Fortunes  and  our 
sacred  Honor. 


John  Hancock. 


New  Hampshire. 


Josiah  Bartlett,  Matthew  Thornton. 

Wm.  Whipple, 


Massachusetts  Bay. 


Saml.  Adams, 
John  Adams, 


Robt.  Treat  Paine 
Elbridge  Gerry. 


Step.  Hopkins, 


Rhode  Island. 

William  Ellery. 


Connecticut. 


Roger  Sherman,  Wm.  Williams, 

Sam’el  Huntington,  Oliver  Wolcott. 


DECLARATION  OF  INDEPENDENCE  173 


Wm.  Floyd, 

Phil.  Livingston, 


Richd.  Stockton, 
Jno.  Witherspoon 
Fras.  Hopkinson, 


R.obt.  Morris, 
Benjamin  Rush, 
Benja.  Franklin, 
John  Morton, 
Geo.  Clymer, 


Caesar  Rodney, 
Geo.  Read, 


New  York. 

Frans.  Lewis, 
Lewis  Morris. 

New  Jersey. 

John  Hart, 

,  Abra.  Clark. 

Pennsylvania. 

Jas.  Smith, 
Geo.  Taylor, 
James  Wilson, 
Geo.  Ross. 

Delaware. 

Tho.  M’Kean. 


Samuel  Chase, 
Wm.  Paca, 


Maryland. 

Thos.  Stone, 

Charles  Carroll  of  Car¬ 
rollton. 


Virginia. 


George  Wythe,  Thos.  Nelson,  Jr., 

Richard  Henry  Lee,  Francis  Lightfoot  Lee, 

Th.  Jefferson,  Carter  Braxton. 

Benja.  Harrison, 


174  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

North  Carolina. 

Wm.  Hooper,  John  Penn. 

Joseph  Hewes, 

South  Carolina. 

Edward  Rutledge,  Thomas  Lynch,  Junr., 

Thos.  Heyward,  Junr.,  Arthur  Middleton. 

Georgia. 

Button  Gwinnett,  Geo.  Walton. 

Lyman  Hall, 


Note. — Mr.  Ferdinand  Jefferson,  Keeper  of  the  Rolls  in  the 
Department  of  State,  at  Washington,  says:  “The  names  of 
the  signers  are  spelt  above  as  in  the  fac-simile  of  the  original, 
but  the  punctuation  of  them  is  not  always  the  same;  neither  do 
the  names  of  the  States  appear  in  the  fac-simile  of  the  original. 
The  names  of  the  signers  of  each  State  are  grouped  together 
in  the  fac-simile  of  the  original,  except  the  name  of  Matthew 
Thornton,  which  follows  that  of  Oliver  Wolcott.” 


I 


ARTICLES  OF  CONFEDERATION  —  1777. 

To  all  to  whom  these  Presents  shall  come,  we  the  under * 
signed  Delegates  of  the  States  affixed  to  our  Names 

send  greeting. 

Whereas  the  Delegates  of  the  United  States  of 
America  in  Congress  assembled  did  on  the  fifteenth 
day  of  November  in  the  Year  of  our  Lord  One 
Thousand  Seven  Hundred  and  Seventyseven,  and 
in  the  Second  Year  of  the  Independence  of  America 
agree  to  certain  articles  of  Confederation  and  per¬ 
petual  Union  between  the  States  of  Newhampshire, 
Massachusetts-bay,  Rhodeisland  and  Providence 
Plantations,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey, 
Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  North- 
Carolina,  South-Carolina  and  Georgia  in  the  Words 
following,  viz. 

“  Articles  of  Confederation  and  perpetual  Union  between 
the  States  of  Newhampshire ,  Massachusetts-bay , 
Rhodeisland  and  Providence  Plantations ,  Con¬ 
necticut,  New-York ,  New- Jersey,  Pennsylvania , 
Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia ,  Nortli-Carolina , 
South-Carolina  and  Georgia. 

Article  I.  The  stile  of  this  confederacy  shall  be 
“The  United  States  of  America.” 

175 


176  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


Article  II.  Each  State  retains  its  sovereignty, 
freedom  and  independence,  and  every  power,  juris¬ 
diction  and  right,  which  is  not  by  this  confederation 
expressly  delegated  to  the  United  States,  in  Congress 
assembled. 

Article  III.  The  said  States  hereby  severally 
enter  into  a  firm  league  of  friendship  with  each  other, 
for  their  common  defence,  the  security  of  their  liber¬ 
ties,  and  their  mutual  and  general  welfare,  binding 
themselves  to  assist  each  other,  against  all  force  offered 
to,  or  attacks  made  upon  them,  or  any  of  them,  on 
account  of  religion,  sovereignty,  trade,  or  any  other 
pretence  whatever. 

Article  IV.  The  better  to  secure  and  perpetuate 
mutual  friendship  and  intercourse  among  the  people  of 
the  different  States  in  this  Union,  the  free  inhabitants 
of  each  of  these  States,  paupers,  vagabonds  and  fugi¬ 
tives  from  justice  excepted,  shall  be  entitled  to  all  priv¬ 
ileges  and  immunities  of  free  citizens  in  the  several 
States;  and  the  people  of  each  State  shall  have  free  in¬ 
gress  and  regress  to  and  from  any  other  State,  and  shall 
enjoy  therein  all  the  privileges  of  trade  and  commerce, 
subject  to  the  same  duties,  impositions  and  restrictions 
as  the  inhabitants  thereof  respectively,  provided  that 
such  restrictions  shall  not  extend  so  far  as  to  prevent 
the  removal  of  property  imported  into  any  State,  to 
any  other  State  of  which  the  owner  is  an  inhabitant; 
provided  also  that  no  imposition,  duties  or  restriction 
shall  be  laid  by  any  State,  on  the  property  of  the 
United  States,  or  either  of  them. 

If  any  person  guilty  of,  or  charged  with  treason,  fel¬ 
ony,  or  other  high  misdemeanor  in  any  State,  shall  flee 
from  justice,  and  be  found  in  any  of  the  United  States, 


ARTICLES  OF  CONFEDERATION  177 


he  shall  upon  demand  of  the  Governor  or  Executive 
power,  of  the  State  from  which  he  fled,  be  delivered 
up  and  removed  to  the  State  having  jurisdiction  of 
his  offence. 

Full  faith  and  credit  shall  be  given  in  each  of  these 
States  to  the  records,  acts  and  judicial  proceedings  of 
the  courts  and  magistrates  of  every  other  State. 

Article  V.  For  the  more  convenient  management 
of  the  general  interests  of  the  United  States,  delegates 
shall  be  annually  appointed  in  such  manner  as  the  leg¬ 
islature  of  each  State  shall  direct,  to  meet  in  Congress 
on  the  first  Monday  in  November,  in  every  year,  with 
a  power  reserved  to  each  State,  to  recall  its  delegates, 
or  any  of  them,  at  any  time  within  the  year,  and  to 
send  others  in  their  stead,  for  the  remainder  of  the  year. 

No  State  shall  be  represented  in  Congress  by  less 
than  two,  nor  by  more  than  seven  members;  and  no 
person  shall  be  capable  of  being  a  delegate  for  more 
than  three  years  in  any  term  of  six  years;  nor  shall  any 
person,  being  a  delegate,  be  capable  of  holding  any  of¬ 
fice  under  the  United  States,  for  which  he,  or  another 
for  his  benefit  receives  any  salary,  fees  or  emolument 
of  any  kind. 

Each  State  shall  maintain  its  own  delegates  in  a 
meeting  of  the  States,  and  while  they  act  as  members 
of  the  committee  of  the  States. 

In  determining  questions  in  the  United  States,  in 
Congress  assembled,  each  State  shall  have  one  vote. 

Freedom  of  speech  and  debate  in  Congress  shall  not  ■ 
be  impeached  or  questioned  in  any  court,  or  place  out 
of  Congress,  and  the  members  of  Congress  shall  be 
protected  in  their  persons  from  arrests  and  imprison¬ 
ments,  during  the  time  of  their  going  to  and  from,  and 


12 


178  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


attendance  on  Congress,  except  for  treason,  felony,  or 
breach  of  the  peace. 

Article  VI.  No  State  without  the  consent  of  the 
United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  shall  send  any 
embassy  to,  or  receive  any  embassy  from,  or  enter  into 
any  conference,  agreement,  alliance  or  treaty  with  any 
king  prince  or  state;  nor  shall  any  person  holding  any 
office  of  profit  or  trust  under  the  United  States,  or  any 
of  them,  accept  of  any  present,  emolument,  office  or 
title  of  any  kind  whatever  from  any  king,  prince  or 
foreign  state;  nor  shall  the  United  States  in  Congress 
assembled,  or  any  of  them,  grant  any  title  of  nobility. 

No  two  or  more  States  shall  enter  into  any  treaty, 
confederation  or  alliance  whatever  between  them, 
without  the  consent  of  the  United  States  in  Congress 
assembled,  specifying  accurately  the  purposes  for 
which  the  same  is  to  be  entered  into,  and  how  long  it 
shall  continue. 

No  state  shall  lay  any  imposts  or  duties,  which  may 
interfere  with  any  stipulations  in  treaties,  entered  into 
by  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  with  any 
king,  prince  or  state,  in  pursuance  of  any  treaties  al¬ 
ready  proposed  by  Congress,  to  the  courts  of  France 
and  Spain. 

No  vessels  of  war  shall  be  kept  up  in  time  of  peace 
by  any  State,  except  such  number  only,  as  shall  be 
deemed  necessary  by  the  United  States  in  Congress 
assembled,  for  the  defence  of  such  State,  or  its  trade; 
nor  shall  any  body  of  forces  be  kept  up  by  any  State, 
in  time  of  peace,  except  such  number  only,  as  in  the 
judgment  of  the  United  States,  in  Congress  assembled, 
shall  be  deemed  requisite  to  garrison  the  forts  neces¬ 
sary  for  the  defence  of  such  State;  but  every  State  shall 


ARTICLES  OF  CONFEDERATION  179 


always  keep  up  a  well  regulated  and  disciplined  militia, 
sufficiently  armed  and  accoutered,  and  shall  provide 
and  constantly  have  ready  for  use,  in  public  stores,  a 
due  number  of  field  pieces  and  tents,  and  a  proper 
quantity  of  arms,  ammunition  and  camp  equipage. 

No  State  shall  engage  in  any  war  without  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  unless 
such  State  be  actually  invaded  by  enemies,  or  shall 
have  received  certain  advice  of  a  resolution  being 
formed  by  some  nation  of  Indians  to  invade  such  State, 
and  the  danger  is  so  imminent  as  not  to  admit  of  a  de¬ 
lay,  till  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled  can 
be  consulted :  nor  shall  any  State  grant  commissions  to 
any  ships  or  vessels  of  war,  nor  letters  of  marque  or  re¬ 
prisal,  except  it  be  after  a  declaration  of  war  by  the 
United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  and  then  only 
against  the  kingdom  or  state  and  the  subjects  thereof, 
against  which  war  has  been  so  declared,  and  under 
such  regulations  as  shall  be  established  by  the  United 
States  in  Congress  assembled,  unless  such  State  be  in¬ 
fested  by  pirates,  in  which  case  vessels  of  war  may  be 
fitted  out  for  that  occasion,  and  kept  so  long  as  the 
danger  shall  continue,  or  until  the  United  States  in 
Congress  assembled  shall  determine  otherwise. 

Article  VII.  When  land-forces  are  raised  by  any 
State  for  the  common  defence,  all  officers  of  or  under 
the  rank  of  colonel,  shall  be  appointed  by  the  Legisla¬ 
ture  of  each  State  respectively  by  whom  such  forces 
shall  be  raised,  or  in  such  manner  as  such  State  shall 
direct,  and  all  vacancies  shall  be  filled  up  by  the  State 
which  first  made  the  appointment. 

Article  VIII.  All  charges  of  war,  and  all  other  ex¬ 
penses  that  shall  be  incurred  for  the  common  defence 


180  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


or  general  welfare,  and  allowed  by  the  United  States 
in  Congress  assembled,  shall  be  defrayed  out  of  a  com¬ 
mon  treasury,  which  shall  be  supplied  by  the  several 
States,  in  proportion  to  the  value  of  all  land  within 
each  State,  granted  to  or  surveyed  for  any  person,  as 
such  land  and  the  buildings  and  improvements  thereon 
shall  be  estimated  according  to  such  mode  as  the 
United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  shall  from  time 
to  time  direct  and  appoint. 

The  taxes  for  paying  that  proportion  shall  be  laid 
and  levied  by  the  authority  and  direction  of  the  Legis¬ 
latures  of  the  several  States  within  the  time  agreed 
upon  by  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled. 

Article  IX.  The  United  States  in  Congress  as¬ 
sembled,  shall  have  the  sole  and  exclusive  right  and 
power  of  determining  on  peace  and  war,  except  in  the 
cases  mentioned  in  the  sixth  article  —  of  sending  and 
receiving  ambassadors  —  entering  into  treaties  and  al¬ 
liances,  provided  that  no  treaty  of  commerce  shall  be 
made  whereby  the  legislative  power  of  the  respective 
States  shall  be  restrained  from  imposing  such  imposts 
and  duties  on  foreigners,  as  their  own  people  are  sub¬ 
jected  to,  or  from  prohibiting  the  exportation  or  im¬ 
portation  of  any  species  of  goods  or  commodities  what¬ 
soever  —  of  establishing  rules  for  deciding  in  all  cases, 
what  captures  on  land  or  water  shall  be  legal,  and  in 
what  manner  prizes  taken  by  land  or  naval  forces  in 
the  service  of  the  United  States  shall  be  divided  or  ap¬ 
propriated  —  of  granting  letters  of  marque  and  re¬ 
prisal  in  times  of  peace  —  appointing  courts  for  the 
trial  of  piracies  and  felonies  committed  on  the  high 
seas  and  establishing  courts  for  receiving  and  deter¬ 
mining  finally  appeals  in  all  cases  of  captures,  provided 


ARTICLES  OF  CONFEDERATION  181 


that  no  member  of  Congress  shall  be  appointed  a  judge 
of  any  of  the  said  courts. 

The  United  States  in  Congress  assembled  shall  also 
be  the  last  resort  on  appeal  in  all  disputes  and  differ¬ 
ences  now  subsisting  or  that  hereafter  may  arise  be¬ 
tween  two  or  more  States  concerning  boundary,  juris¬ 
diction  or  any  other  cause  whatever;  which  authority 
shall  always  be  exercised  in  the  manner  following. 
Whenever  the  legislative  or  executive  authority  or 
lawful  agent  of  any  State  in  controversy  with  another 
shall  present  a  petition  to  Congress,  stating  the  matter 
in  question  and  praying  for  a  hearing,  notice  thereof 
shall  be  given  by  order  of  Congress  to  the  legislative 
or  executive  authority  of  the  other  State  in  contro¬ 
versy,  and  a  day  assigned  for  the  appearance  of  the 
parties  by  their  lawful  agents,  who  shall  then  be  di¬ 
rected  to  appoint  by  joint  consent,  commissioners  or 
judges  to  constitute  a  court  for  hearing  and  determin¬ 
ing  the  matter  in  question:  but  if  they  cannot  agree, 
Congress  shall  name  three  persons  out  of  each  of  the 
United  States,  and  from  the  list  of  such  persons  each 
party  shall  alternately  strike  out  one,  the  petitioners 
beginning,  until  the  number  shall  be  reduced  to  thir¬ 
teen;  and  from  that  number  not  less  than  seven,  nor 
more  than  nine  names  as  Congress  shall  direct,  shall 
in  the  presence  of  Congress  be  drawn  out  by  lot,  and 
the  persons  whose  names  shall  be  so  drawn  or  any  five 
of  them,  shall  be  commissioners  or  judges,  to  hear  and 
finally  determine  the  controversy,  so  always  as  a  ma¬ 
jor  part  of  the  judges  who  shall  hear  the  cause  shall 
agree  in  the  determination:  and  if  either  party  shall 
neglect  to  attend  at  the  day  appointed,  without  show¬ 
ing  reasons,  which  Congress  shall  judge  sufficient,  or 


182  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


being  present  shall  refuse  to  strike,  the  Congress  shall 
proceed  to  nominate  three  persons  out  of  each  State, 
and  the  Secretary  of  Congress  shall  strike  in  behalf  of 
such  party  absent  or  refusing;  and  the  judgment  and 
sentence  of  the  court  to  be  appointed,  in  the  manner 
before  prescribed,  shall  be  final  and  conclusive;  and  if 
any  of  the  parties  shall  refuse  to  submit  to  the  author¬ 
ity  of  such  court,  or  to  appear  or  defend  their  claim  or 
cause,  the  court  shall  nevertheless  proceed  to  pro* 
nounce  sentence,  or  judgment,  which  shall  in  like  man¬ 
ner  be  final  and  decisive,  the  judgment  or  sentence  and 
other  proceedings  being  in  either  case  transmitted  to 
Congress,  and  lodged  among  the  acts  of  Congress  for 
the  security  of  the  parties  concerned:  provided  that 
every  commissioner,  before  he  sits  in  judgment,  shall 
take  an  oath  to  be  administered  by  one  of  the  judges  of 
the  supreme  or  superior  court  of  the  State  where  the 
cause  shall  be  tried,  “  well  and  truly  to  hear  and  deter¬ 
mine  the  matter  in  question,  according  to  the  best  of 
his  judgment,  without  favour,  affection  or  hope  of  re¬ 
ward  provided  also  that  no  State  shall  be  deprived 
of  territory  for  the  benefit  of  the  United  States. 

All  controversies  concerning  the  private  right  of  soil 
claimed  under  different  grants  of  two  or  more  States, 
whose  jurisdiction  as  they  may  respect  such  lands,  and 
the  States  which  passed  such  grants  are  adjusted,  the 
said  grants  or  either  of  them  being  at  the  same  time 
claimed  to  have  originated  antecedent  to  such  settle¬ 
ment  of  jurisdiction,  shall  on  the  petition  of  either 
party  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  be  finally 
determined  as  near  as  may  be  in  the  same  manner 
as  is  before  prescribed  for  deciding  disputes  respecting 
territorial  jurisdiction  between  different  States. 


ARTICLES  OF  CONFEDERATION  183 


The  United  States  in  Congress  assembled  shall  also 
have  the  sole  and  exclusive  right  and  power  of  regulat¬ 
ing  the  alloy  and  value  of  coin  struck  by  their  own 
authority,  or  by  that  of  the  respective  States.  —  fixing 
the  standard  of  weights  and  measures  throughout  the 
United  States.  —  regulating  the  trade  and  managing 
all  affairs  with  the  Indians,  not  members  of  any  of  the 
States,  provided  that  the  legislative  right  of  any  State 
within  its  own  limits  be  not  infringed  or  violated  — 
establishing  and  regulating  post-offices  from  one  State 
to  another,  throughout  all  the  United  States,  and  ex¬ 
acting  such  postage  on  the  papers  passing  thro*  the 
same  as  may  be  requisite  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the 
said  office  — -  appointing  all  officers  of  the  land  forces, 
in  the  service  of  the  United  States,  excepting  regimen¬ 
tal  officers  —  appointing  all  the  officers  of  the  naval 
forces,  and  commissioning  all  officers  whatever  in  the 
service  of  the  United  States  —  making  rules  for  the 
government  and  regulation  of  the  said  land  and  naval 
forces,  and  directing  their  operations. 

The  United  States  in  Congress  assembled  shall  have 
authority  to  appoint  a  committee,  to  sit  in  the  recess  of 
Congress,  to  be  denominated  “a  Committee  of  the 
States,”  and  to  consist  of  one  delegate  from  each  State; 
and  to  appoint  such  other  committees  and  civil  officers 
as  may  be  necessary  for  managing  the  general  affairs  of 
the  United  States  under  their  direction  —  to  appoint 
one  of  their  number  to  preside,  provided  that  no  person 
be  allowed  to  serve  in  the  office  of  president  more  than 
one  year  in  any  term  of  three  years;  to  ascertain  the 
necessary  sums  of  money  to  be  raised  for  the  service  of 
the  United  States,  and  to  appropriate  and  apply  the 
same  for  defraying  the  public  expenses  —  to  borrow 


184  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


money,  or  emit  bills  on  the  credit  of  the  United  States, 
transmitting  every  half  year  to  the  respective  States 
an  account  of  the  sums  of  money  so  borrowed  or 
emitted,  —  to  build  and  equip  a  navy  —  to  agree  up¬ 
on  the  number  of  land  forces,  and  to  make  requisitions 
from  each  State  for  its  quota,  in  proportion  to  the  num¬ 
ber  of  white  inhabitants  in  such  State;  which  requisi¬ 
tion  shall  be  binding,  and  thereupon  the  Legislature  of 
each  State  shall  appoint  the  regimental  officers,  raise 
the  men  and  cloath,  arm  and  equip  them  in  a  soldier 
like  manner,  at  the  expense  of  the  United  States;  and 
the  officers  and  men  so  cloathed,  armed  and  equipped 
shall  march  to  the  place  appointed,  and  within  the 
time  agreed  on  by  the  United  States  in  Congress  as¬ 
sembled:  but  if  the  United  States  in  Congress  as¬ 
sembled  shall,  on  consideration  of  circumstances  judge 
proper  that  any  State  should  not  raise  men,  or  should 
raise  a  smaller  number  than  its  quota,  and  that  any 
other  State  should  raise  a  greater  number  of  men  than 
the  quota  thereof,  such  extra  number  shall  be  raised, 
officered,  cloathed,  armed  and  equipped  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  quota  of  such  State,  unless  the  legisla¬ 
ture  of  such  State  shall  judge  that  such  extra  number 
cannot  be  safely  spared  out  of  the  same,  in  which  case 
they  shall  raise  officer,  cloath,  arm  and  equip  as  many 
of  such  extra  number  as  they  judge  can  be  safely 
spared.  And  the  officers  and  men  so  cloathed,  armed 
and  equipped,  shall  march  to  the  place  appointed,  and 
within  the  time  agreed  on  by  the  United  States  in 
Congress  assembled. 

The  United  States  in  Congress  assembled  shall  never 
engage  in  a  war,  nor  grant  letters  of  marque  and  re¬ 
prisal  in  time  of  peace,  nor  enter  into  any  treaties  or 


ARTICLES  OF  CONFEDERATION  185 


alliances,  nor  coin  money,  nor  regulate  the  value  there¬ 
of,  nor  ascertain  the  sums  and  expenses  necessary  for 
the  defence  and  welfare  of  the  United  States,  or  any  of 
them,  nor  emit  bills,  nor  borrow  money  on  the  credit 
of  the  United  States,  nor  appropriate  money,  nor  agree 
upon  the  number  of  vessels  of  war,  to  be  built  or  pur¬ 
chased,  or  the  number  of  land  or  sea  forces  to  be  raised, 
nor  appoint  a  commander  in  chief  of  the  army  or  navy, 
unless  nine  States  assent  to  the  same :  nor  shall  a  ques¬ 
tion  on  any  other  point,  except  for  adjourning  from 
day  to  day  be  determined,  unless  by  the  votes  of  a 
majority  of  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled. 

The  Congress  of  the  United  States  shall  have  power 
to  adjourn  to  any  time  within  the  year,  and  to  any 
place  within  the  United  States,  so  that  no  period  of 
adjournment  be  for  a  longer  duration  than  the  space 
of  six  months,  and  shall  publish  the  journal  of  their 
proceedings  monthly,  except  such  parts  thereof  relat¬ 
ing  to  treaties,  alliances  or  military  operations,  as  in 
their  judgment  require  secresy ;  and  the  yeas  and  nays 
of  the  delegates  of  each  State  on  any  question  shall  be 
entered  on  the  journal,  when  it  is  desired  by  any  delegate; 
and  the  delegates  of  a  State,  or  any  of  them,  at  his  or 
their  request  shall  be  furnished  with  a  transcript  of  the 
said  journal,  except  such  parts  as  are  above  excepted, 
to  lay  before  the  Legislatures  of  the  several  States. 

Article  X.  The  committee  of  the  States,  or  any 
nine  of  them,  shall  be  authorized  to  execute,  in  the  re¬ 
cess  of  Congress,  such  of  the  powers  of  Congress  as  the 
United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  by  the  consent  of 
nine  States,  shall  from  time  to  time  think  expedient  to 
vest  them  with;  provided  that  no  power  be  delegated 
to  the  said  committee,  for  the  exercise  of  which,  by  the 


186  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


articles  of  confederation,  the  voice  of  nine  States  in  the 

\ 

Congress  of  the  United  States  assembled  is  requisite. 

Article  XI.  Canada  acceding  to  this  confedera¬ 
tion,  and  joining  in  the  measures  of  the  United  States, 
shall  be  admitted  into,  and  entitled  to  all  the  advan¬ 
tages  of  this  Union:  but  no  other  colony  shall  be  ad¬ 
mitted  into  the  same,  unless  such  admission  be  agreed 
to  by  nine  States. 

Article  XII.  All  bills  of  credit  emitted,  monies 
borrowed  and  debts  contracted  by,  or  under  the  au¬ 
thority  of  Congress,  before  the  assembling  of  the 
United  States,  in  pursuance  of  the  present  confedera¬ 
tion,  shall  be  deemed  and  considered  as  a  charge 
against  the  United  States,  for  payment  and  satisfac¬ 
tion  whereof  the  said  United  States,  and  the  public 
faith  are  hereby  solemnly  pledged. 

Article  XIII.  Every  State  shall  abide  by  the  de¬ 
terminations  of  the  United  States  in  Congress  as¬ 
sembled,  on  all  questions  which  by  this  confederation 
are  submitted  to  them.  And  the  articles  of  this  con¬ 
federation  shall  be  inviolably  observed  by  every  State, 
and  the  Union  shall  be  perpetual;  nor  shall  any  altera¬ 
tion  at  any  time  hereafter  be  made  in  any  of  them;  un¬ 
less  such  alteration  be  agreed  to  in  a  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  and  be  afterwards  confirmed  by  the 
Legislatures  of  every  State. 

And  whereas  it  has  pleased  the  Great  Governor  of 
the  world  to  incline  the  hearts  of  the  Legislatures  we 
respectively  represent  in  Congress,  to  approve  of,  and 
to  authorize  us  to  ratify  the  said  articles  of  confed¬ 
eration  and  perpetual  union.  Know  ye  that  we  the 
undersigned  delegates,  by  virtue  of  the  power  and 
authority  to  us  given  for  that  purpose,  do  by  these 


ARTICLES  OF  CONFEDERATION  187 


presents,  in  the  name  and  in  behalf  of  our  respective 
constituents,  fully  and  entirely  ratify  and  confirm  each 
and  every  of  the  said  articles  of  confederation  and  per¬ 
petual  union,  and  all  and  singular  the  matters  and 
things  therein  contained:  and  we  do  further  solemnly 
plight  and  engage  the  faith  of  our  respective  con¬ 
stituents,  that  they  shall  abide  by  the  determinations 
of  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  on  all 
questions,  which  by  the  said  confederation  are  sub¬ 
mitted  to  them.  And  that  the  articles  thereof  shall 
be  inviolably  observed  by  the  States  we  respectively 
represent,  and  that  the  Union  shall  be  perpetual. 

In  witness  whereof  we  have  hereunto  set  our  hands 
in  Congress.  Done  at  Philadelphia  in  the  State 
of  Pennsylvania  the  ninth  day  of  July  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  seven  hundred 
and  seventy-eight,  and  in  the  third  year  of  the 
independence  of  America.1 

On  the  part  6c  behalf  of  the  State  of  New  Hampshire. 

Josiah  Bartlett,  John  Wentworth,  Junr., 

August  8th,  1778. 

On  the  part  and  behalf  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts  Bay. 

John  Hancock,  Francis  Dana, 

Samuel  Adams,  James  Lovell, 

Eldbridge  Gerry,  Samuel  Holten. 

1  From  the  circumstances  of  delegates  from  the  same  State  hav¬ 
ing  signed  the  Articles  of  Confederation  at  different  times,  as 
appears  by  the  dates,  it  is  probable  they  affixed  their  names  as 
they  happened  to  be  present  in  Congress,  after  they  had  been 
authorized  by  their  constituents. 


188  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


On  the  part  and  behalf  of  the  State  of  Rhode  Island  and 

Providence  Plantations. 

Williams  Ellery,  John  Collins. 

Henry  Marchant, 

On  the  part  and  behalf  of  the  State  of  Connecticut. 

Roger  Sherman,  Titus  Hosmer, 

Samuel  Huntington,  Andrew  Adams. 

Oliver  Wolcott, 

On  the  part  and  behalf  of  the  State  of  New  York . 

Jas.  Duane,  Wm.  Duer, 

Fra.  Lewis,  Gouv.  Morris. 


On  the  part  and  in  behalf  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey , 

Novr.  26 ,  1778. 

Jno.  Witherspoon,  Nathl.  Scudder. 


On  the  part  and  behalf  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania. 


Robt.  Morris, 
Daniel  Roberdeau, 
Jona.  Bayard  Smith, 


William  Clingan, 
Joseph  Reed,  22d  July, 


1778. 


On  the  part  &  behalf  of  the  State  of  Delaware. 

Tho.  M’Kean,  Feby.  12,  Nicholas  Van  Dyke. 
1779. 

John  Dickinson,  May  5, 

1779. 

On  the  part  and  behalf  of  the  State  of  Maryland. 

John  Hanson,  March  1,  Daniel  Carroll,  Mar.  1, 
1781.  1781. 


ARTICLES  OF  CONFEDERATION  189 


On  the  part  and  behalf  of  the  State  of  Virginia. 

Richard  Henry  Lee,  Jno.  Harvie, 

John  Banister,  Francis  Lightfoot  Lee. 

Thomas  Adams, 

/ 

On  the  part  and  behalf  of  the  State  of  No.  Carolina „ 

John  Penn,  July  21st,  Jno.  Williams. 

1778. 

Corns.  Harnett, 

On  the  part  &  behalf  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina 

Henry  Laurens,  Richd.  Hutson, 

William  Henry  Dray-  Thos.  Heyward,  Junr. 
ton, 

Jno.  Mathews, 

On  the  part  &  behalf  of  the  State  of  Georgia . 

Jno.  Walton,  24th  July,  Edwd.  Langworthy. 
1778. 

Edwd.  Telfair, 


THE  NORTHWEST  TERRITORIAL 
GOVERNMENT  —  1787. 


The  Confederate  Congress,  July  13,  1787. 

An  Ordinance  for  the  government  of  the  territory  of  the 
United  States  northwest  of  the  river  Ohio. 

Section  1.  Be  it  ordained  by  the  United  States  in 
Congress  assembled ,  That  the  said  territory,  for  the 
purpose  of  temporary  government,  be  one  district, 
subject,  however,  to  be  divided  into  two  districts,  as 
future  circumstances  may,  in  the  opinion  of  Congress, 
make  it  expedient. 

Sec.  2.  Be  it  ordained  by  the  authority  aforesaid , 
That  the  estates  both  of  resident  and  non-resident  pro¬ 
prietors  in  the  said  territory,  dying  intestate,  shall  de¬ 
scend  to,  and  be  distributed  among,  their  children  and 
the  descendants  of  a  deceased  child  in  equal  parts,  the 
descendants  of  a  deceased  child  or  grandchild  to  take 
the  share  of  their  deceased  parent  in  equal  parts  among 
them;  and  where  there  shall  be  no  children  or  descend¬ 
ants,  then  in  equal  parts  to  the  next  of  kin,  in  equal  de¬ 
gree;  and  among  collaterals,  the  children  of  a  deceased 
brother  or  sister  of  the  intestate  shall  have,  in  equal 
parts  among  them,  their  deceased  parent’s  share;  and 
there  shall,  in  no  case,  be  a  distinction  between  kindred 
of  the  whole  and  half  blood;  saving  in  all  cases  to  the 

190 


NORTHWEST  GOVERNMENT 


191 


widow  of  the  intestate,  her  third  part  of  the  real  estate 
for  life,  and  one-third  part  of  the  personal  estate;  and 
this  law  relative  to  descents  and  dower,  shall  remain  in 
full  force  until  altered  by  the  legislature  of  the  district. 
And  until  the  governor  and  judges  shall  adopt  laws  as 
hereinafter  mentioned,  estates  in  the  said  territory 
may  be  devised  or  bequeathed  by  wills  in  writing, 
signed  and  sealed  by  him  or  her  in  whom  the  estate 
may  be,  (being  of  full  age,)  and  attested  by  three  wit¬ 
nesses;  and  real  estates  may  be  conveyed  by  lease  and 
release,  or  bargain  and  sale,  signed,  sealed,  and  deliv¬ 
ered  by  the  person,  being  of  full  age,  in  whom  the  es¬ 
tate  may  be,  and  attested  by  two  witnesses,  provided 
such  wills  be  duly  proved,  and  such  conveyances  be 
acknowledged,  or  the  execution  thereof  duly  proved, 
and  be  recorded  within  one  year  after  proper  magis¬ 
trates,  courts,  and  registers,  shall  be  appointed  for 
that  purpose;  and  personal  property  may  be  trans¬ 
ferred  by  delivery,  saving,  however,  to  the  French  and 
Canadian  inhabitants,  and  other  settlers  of  the  Kas- 
kaskias,  Saint  Vincents,  and  the  neighboring  villages, 
who  have  heretofore  professed  themselves  citizens  of 
Virginia,  their  laws  and  customs  now  being  in  force 
among  them,  relative  to  the  descent  and  conveyance 
of  property. 

Sec.  3.  Be  it  ordained  by  the  authority  aforesaid. 
That  there  shall  be  appointed,  from  time  to  time,  by 
Congress,  a  governor,  whose  commission  shall  continue 
in  force  for  the  term  of  three  years,  unless  sooner  re¬ 
voked  by  Congress;  he  shall  reside  in  the  district,  and 
have  a  freehold  estate  therein,  in  one  thousand  acres 
of  land,  while  in  the  exercise  of  his  office. 

Sec.  4.  There  shall  be  appointed  from  time  to  time. 


192  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


by  Congress,  a  secretary,  whose  commission  shall  con¬ 
tinue  in  force  for  four  years,  unless  sooner  revoked;  he 
shall  reside  in  the  district,  and  have  a  freehold  estate 
therein,  in  five  hundred  acres  of  land,  while  in  the  ex¬ 
ercise  of  his  office.  It  shall  be  his  duty  to  keep  and 
preserve  the  acts  and  laws  passed  by  the  legislature, 
and  the  public  records  of  the  district,  and  the  proceed¬ 
ings  of  the  governor  in  his  executive  department,  and 
transmit  authentic  copies  of  such  acts  and  proceedings 
every  six  months  to  the  Secretary  of  Congress.  There 
shall  also  be  appointed  a  court,  to  consist  of  three 
judges,  any  two  of  whom  to  form  a  court,  who  shall 
have  a  common-law  jurisdiction,  and  reside  in  the  dis¬ 
trict,  and  have  each  therein  a  freehold  estate,  in  five 
hundred  acres  of  land,  while  in  the  exercise  of  their 
offices;  and  their  commissions  shall  continue  in  force 
during  good  behavior. 

Sec.  5.  The  governor  and  judges,  or  a  majority  of 
them,  shall  adopt  and  publish  in  the  distric[t]  such 
laws  of  the  original  States,  criminal  and  civil,  as  may 
be  necessary,  and  best  suited  to  the  circumstances  of 
the  district,  and  report  them  to  Congress  from  time  to 
time,  which  laws  shall  be  in  force  in  the  district  until 
the  organization  of  the  general  assembly  therein,  un¬ 
less  disapproved  of  by  Congress;  but  afterwards  the 
legislature  shall  have  authority  to  alter  them  as  they 
shall  think  fit. 

Sec.  6.  The  governor,  for  the  time  being,  shall  be 
commander-in-chief  of  the  militia,  appoint  and  com¬ 
mission  all  officers  in  the  same  below  the  rank  of  gen¬ 
eral  officers;  all  general  officers  shall  be  appointed  and 
commissioned  by  Congress. 

Sec.  7.  Previous  to  the  organization  of  the  general 


NORTHWEST  GOVERNMENT 


193 


assembly  the  governor  shall  appoint  such  magistrates, 
and  other  civil  officers,  in  each  county  or  township,  as 
he  shall  find  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the  peace 
and  good  order  in  the  same.  After  the  general  as¬ 
sembly  shall  be  organized  the  powers  and  duties  of 
magistrates  and  other  civil  officers  shall  be  regulated 
and  defined  by  the  said  assembly;  but  all  magis¬ 
trates  and  other  civil  officers,  not  herein  otherwise  di¬ 
rected,  shall,  during  the  continuance  of  this  temporary 
government,  be  appointed  by  the  governor. 

Sec.  8.  For  the  prevention  of  crimes  and  injuries, 
the  laws  to  be  adopted  or  made  shall  have  force  in  all 
parts  of  the  district,  and  for  the  execution  of  process, 
criminal  and  civil,  the  governor  shall  make  proper  di¬ 
visions  thereof;  and  he  shall  proceed,  from  time  to 
time,  as  circumstances  may  require,  to  lay  out  the 
parts  of  the  district  in  which  the  Indian  titles  shall 
have  been  extinguished,  into  counties  and  townships, 
subject,  however,  to  such  alterations  as  may  thereafter 
be  made  by  the  legislature. 

Sec.  9.  So  soon  as  there  shall  be  five  thousand  free 
male  inhabitants,  of  full  age,  in  the  district,  upon  giv¬ 
ing  proof  thereof  to  the  governor,  they  shall  receive 
authority, with  time  and  place,  to  elect  representatives 
from  their  counties  or  townships,  to  represent  them  in 
the  general  assembly:  Provided ,  That  for  every  five 
hundred  free  male  inhabitants  there  shall  be  one  repre¬ 
sentative,  and  so  on,  progressively,  with  the  number  of 
free  male  inhabitants,  shall  the  right  of  representation 
increase,  until  the  number  of  representatives  shall 
amount  to  twenty-five;  after  which  the  number  and 
proportion  of  representatives  shall  be  regulated  by  the 
legislature:  Provided ,  That  no  person  be  eligible  or 


13 


194  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


qualified  to  act  as  a  representative,  unless  he  shall 
have  been  a  citizen  of  one  of  the  United  States  three 
years,  and  be  a  resident  in  the  district,  or  unless  he 
shall  have  resided  in  the  district  three  years;  and, 
in  either  case,  shall  likewise  hold  in  his  own  right, 
in  fee-simple,  two  hundred  acres  of  land  within  the 
same:  Provided  also,  That  a  freehold  in  fifty  acres  of 
land  in  the  district,  having  been  a  citizen  of  one  of 
the  States,  and  being  resident  in  the  district,  or  the 
like  freehold  and  two  years’  residence  in  the  district, 
shall  be  necessary  to  qualify  a  man  as  an  elector  of 
a  representative. 

Sec.  10.  The  representatives  thus  elected  shall 
serve  for  the  term  of  two  years;  and  in  case  of  the  death 
of  a  representative,  or  removal  from  office,  the  gov¬ 
ernor  shall  issue  a  writ  to  the  county  or  township,  for 
which  he  was  a  member,  to  elect  another  in  his  stead, 
to  serve  for  the  residue  of  the  term. 

Sec.  11.  The  general  assembly,  or  legislature,  shall 
consist  of  the  governor,  legislative  council,  and  a  house 
of  representatives.  The  legislative  council  shall  con¬ 
sist  of  five  members,  to  continue  in  office  five  years, 
unless  sooner  removed  by  Congress;  any  three  of  whom 
to  be  a  quorum;  and  the  members  of  the  council  shall 
be  nominated  and  appointed  in  the  following  manner, 
to  wit:  As  soon  as  representatives  shall  be  elected 
the  governor  shall  appoint  a  time  and  place  for  them 
to  meet  together,  and  when  met  they  shall  nominate 
ten  persons,  resident  in  the  district,  and  each  possessed 
of  a  freehold  in  five  hundred  acres  of  land,  and  return 
their  names  to  Congress,  five  of  whom  Congress  shall 
appoint  and  commission  to  serve  as  aforesaid;  and 
whenever  a  vacancy  shall  happen  in  the  council,  by 


NORTHWEST  GOVERNMENT 


195 


death  or  removal  from  office,  the  house  of  representa¬ 
tives  shall  nominate  two  persons,  qualified  as  aforesaid, 
for  each  vacancy,  and  return  their  names  to  Congress, 
one  of  whom  Congress  shall  appoint  and  commission 
for  the  residue  of  the  term;  and  every  five  years,  four 
months  at  least  before  the  expiration  of  the  time  of 
service  of  the  members  of  the  council,  the  said  house 
shall  nominate  ten  persons,  qualified  as  aforesaid,  and 
return  their  names  to  Congress,  five  of  whom  Congress 
shall  appoint  and  commission  to  serve  as  members  of 
the  council  five  years,  unless  sooner  removed.  And 
the  governor,  legislative  council,  and  house  of  repre¬ 
sentatives  shall  have  authority  to  make  laws  in  all 
cases  for  the  good  government  of  the  district,  not  re¬ 
pugnant  to  the  principles  and  articles  in  this  ordinance 
established  and  declared.  And  all  bills,  having  passed 
by  a  majority  in  the  house,  and  by  a  majority  in  the 
council,  shall  be  referred  to  the  governor  for  his  assent; 
but  no  bill,  or  legislative  act  whatever,  shall  be  of  any 
force  without  his  assent.  The  governor  shall  have 
power  to  convene,  prorogue,  and  dissolve  the  general 
assembly  when,  in  his  opinion,  it  shall  be  expedient. 

Sec.  12.  The  governor,  judges,  legislative  council, 
secretary,  and  such  other  officers  as  Congress  shall  ap¬ 
point  in  the  district,  shall  take  an  oath  or  affirmation  of 
fidelity,  and  of  office;  the  governor  before  the  President 
of  Congress,  and  all  other  officers  before  the  governor. 
As  soon  as  a  legislature  shall  be  formed  in  the  district, 
the  council  and  house  assembled,  in  one  room,  shall 
have  authority,  by  joint  ballot,  to  elect  a  delegate 
to  Congress,  who  shall  have  a  seat  in  Congress,  with 
a  right  of  debating,  but  not  of  voting,  during  this 
temporary  government. 


196  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


Sec.  13.  And  for  extending  the  fundamental  prin¬ 
ciples  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  which  form  the 
basis  whereon  these  republics,  their  laws  and  constitu¬ 
tions,  are  erected;  to  fix  and  establish  those  principles 
as  the  basis  of  all  laws,  constitutions,  and  governments, 
which  forever  hereafter  shall  be  formed  in  the  said 
territory;  to  provide,  also,  for  the  establishment  of 
States,  and  permanent  government  therein,  and  for 
their  admission  to  a  share  in  the  Federal  councils  on  an 
equal  footing  with  the  original  States,  at  as  early  pe¬ 
riods  as  may  be  consistent  with  the  general  interest : 

Sec.  14.  It  is  hereby  ordained  and  declared,  by  the 
authority  aforesaid,  that  the  following  articles  shall  be 
considered  as  articles  of  compact,  between  the  original 
States  and  the  people  and  States  in  the  said  territory, 
and  forever  remain  unalterable,  unless  by  common 
consent,  to  wit: 

ARTICLE  I. 

No  person,  demeaning  himself  in  a  peaceable  and 
orderly  manner,  shall  ever  be  molested  on  account  of 
his  mode  of  worship,  or  religious  sentiments,  in  the 
said  territories. 

ARTICLE  II. 

The  inhabitants  of  the  said  territory  shall  always  be 
entitled  to  the  benefits  of  the  writs  of  habeas  corpus , 
and  of  the  trial  by  jury;  of  a  proportionate  represen¬ 
tation  of  the  people  in  the  legislature,  and  of  judicial 
proceedings  according  to  the  course  of  the  common 
law.  All  persons  shall  be  bailable,  unless  for  capital 
offences,  where  the  proof  shall  be  evident,  or  the  pre¬ 
sumption  great.  All  fines  shall  be  moderate;  and  no 


NORTHWEST  GOVERNMENT 


197 


cruel  or  unusual  punishments  shall  be  inflicted.  No 
man  shall  be  deprived  of  his  liberty  or  property,  but  by 
the  judgment  of  his  peers,  or  the  law  of  the  land,  and 
should  the  public  exigencies  make  it  necessary,  for  the 
common  preservation,  to  take  any  person’s  property, 
or  to  demand  his  particular  services,  full  compensa¬ 
tion  shall  be  made  for  the  same.  And,  in  the  just 
preservation  of  rights  and  property,  it  is  understood 
and  declared,  that  no  law  ought  ever  to  be  made  or 
have  force  in  the  said  territory,  that  shall,  in  any 
manner  whatever,  interfere  with  or  affect  private  con¬ 
tracts,  or  engagements,  bona  fide ,  and  without  fraud 
previously  formed. 

ARTICLE  III. 

Religion,  morality,  and  knowledge  being  necessary 
to  good  government  and  the  happiness  of  mankind, 
schools  and  the  means  of  education  shall  forever  be 
encouraged.  The  utmost  good  faith  shall  always  be 
observed  towards  the  Indians;  their  lands  and  prop¬ 
erty  shall  never  be  taken  from  them  without  their  con¬ 
sent;  and  in  their  property,  rights,  and  liberty  they 
never  shall  be  invaded  or  disturbed,  unless  in  just  and 
lawful  wars  authorized  by  Congress;  but  laws  founded 
in  justice  and  humanity  shall,  from  time  to  time,  be 
made,  for  preventing  wrongs  being  done  to  them,  and 
for  preserving  peace  and  friendship  with  them. 

ARTICLE  IV. 

The  said  territory,  and  the  States  which  may  be 
formed  therein,  shall  forever  remain  a  part  of  this  con¬ 
federacy  of  the  United  States  of  America,  subject  to 
the  Articles  of  Confederation,  and  to  such  alterations 


/ 


198  FATHERS  OF  THE  -CONSTITUTION 

therein  as  shall  be  constitutionally  made;  and  to  all  the 
acts  and  ordinances  of  the  United  States  in  Congress 
assembled,  conformable  thereto.  The  inhabitants  and 
settlers  in  the  said  territory  shall  be  subject  to  pay  a 
part  of  the  Federal  debts,  contracted,  or  to  be  con¬ 
tracted,  and  a  proportional  part  of  the  expenses  of 
government  to  be  apportioned  on  them  by  Congress, 
according  to  the  same  common  rule  and  measure  by 
which  apportionments  thereof  shall  be  made  on  the 
other  States;  and  the  taxes  for  paying  their  proportion 
shall  be  laid  and  levied  by  the  authority  and  direction 
of  the  legislatures  of  the  district,  or  districts,  or  new 
States,  as  in  the  original  States,  within  the  time  agreed 
upon  by  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled. 
The  legislatures  of  those  districts,  or  new  States,  shall 
never  interfere  with  the  primary  disposal  of  the  soil  by 
the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  nor  with  any 
regulations  Congress  may  find  necessary  for  securing 
the  title  in  such  soil  to  the  bona-fide  purchasers.  No 
tax  shall  be  imposed  on  lands  the  property  of  the 
United  States;  and  in  no  case  shall  non-resident  pro¬ 
prietors  be  taxed  higher  than  residents.  The  navi¬ 
gable  waters  leading  into  the  Mississippi  and  Saint 
Lawrence,  and  the  carrying  places  between  the  same, 
shall  be  common  highways,  and  forever  free,  as  well  to 
the  inhabitants  of  the  said  territory  as  to  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  and  those  of  any  other  States 
that  may  be  admitted  into  the  confederacy,  without 
any  tax,  impost,  or  duty  therefor. 

ARTICLE  V. 

There  shall  be  formed  in  the  said  territory  not  less 
than  three  nor  more  than  five  States;  and  the  bound- 


NORTHWEST  GOVERNMENT 


199 


aries  of  the  States,  as  soon  as  Virginia  shall  alter  her 
act  of  cession  and  consent  to  the  same,  shall  become 
fixed  and  established  as  follows,  to  wit:  The  western 
State,  in  the  said  territory,  shall  be  bounded  by  the 
Mississippi,  the  Ohio,  and  the  Wabash  Rivers;  a  direct 
line  drawn  from  the  Wabash  and  Post  Vincents,  due 
north,  to  the  territorial  line  between  the  United  States 
and  Canada;  and  by  the  said  territorial  line  to  the 
Lake  of  the  Woods  and  Mississippi.  The  middle  State 
shall  be  bounded  by  the  said  direct  line,  the  Wabash 
from  Post  Vincents  to  the  Ohio,  by  the  Ohio,  by  a  di¬ 
rect  line  drawn  due  north  from  the  mouth  of  the  Great 
Miami  to  the  said  territorial  line,  and  by  the  said  terri¬ 
torial  line.  The  eastern  State  shall  be  bounded  by  the 
last-mentioned  direct  line,  the  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  and 
the  said  territorial  line:  Provided ,  however,  And  it  is 
further  understood  and  declared,  that  the  boundaries 
of  these  three  States  shall  be  subject  so  far  to  be  al¬ 
tered,  that,  if  Congress  shall  hereafter  find  it  expe¬ 
dient,  they  shall  have  authority  to  form  one  or  two 
States  in  that  part  of  the  said  territory  which  lies  north 
of  an  east  and  west  line  drawn  through  the  southerly 
bend  or  extreme  of  Lake  Michigan.  And  whenever 
any  of  the  said  States  shall  have  sixty  thousand  free 
inhabitants  therein,  such  State  shall  be  admitted,  by 
its  delegates,  into  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States,  in  all  re¬ 
spects  whatever;  and  shall  be  at  liberty  to  form  a  per¬ 
manent  constitution  and  State  government :  Provided, 
The  constitution  and  government,  so  to  be  formed, 
shall  be  republican,  and  in  conformity  to  the  principles 
contained  in  these  articles,  and,  so  far  as  it  can  be 
consistent  with  the  general  interest  of  the  confederacy, 


200  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


such  admission  shall  be  allowed  at  an  earlier  period,  and 
when  there  may  be  a  less  number  of  free  inhabitants 
in  the  State  than  sixty  thousand. 

ARTICLE  VI. 

There  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servi¬ 
tude  in  the  said  territory,  otherwise  than  in  the  pun¬ 
ishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been 
duly  convicted :  Provided  always ,  That  any  person  es¬ 
caping  into  the  same,  from  whom  labor  or  service  is 
lawfully  claimed  in  any  one  of  the  original  States,  such 
fugitive  may  be  lawfully  reclaimed,  and  conveyed 
to  the  person  claiming  his  or  her  labor  or  service  as 
aforesaid. 

Be  it  ordained  by  the  authority  aforesaid ,  That  the 
resolutions  of  the  23d  of  April,  1784,  relative  to  the 
subject  of  this  ordinance,  be,  and  the  same  are  hereby, 
repealed,  and  declared  null  and  void. 

Done  by  the  United  States,  in  Congress  assembled, 
the  13th  day  of  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1787,  and 
of  their  sovereignty  and  independence  the  twelfth. 


V 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  — 

1787. 

We  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  Order  to  form 
a  more  perfect  Union,  establish  Justice,  insure  do¬ 
mestic  Tranquility,  provide  for  the  common  de¬ 
fence,  promote  the  general  Welfare,  and  secure  the 
Blessings  of  Liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  Poster¬ 
ity,  do  ordain  and  establish  this  constitution  for 
the  United  States  of  America. 

V. 

ARTICLE  I. 

Section.  1.  All  legislative  Powers  herein  grant¬ 
ed  shall  be  vested  in  a  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  which  shall  consist  of  a  Senate  and  House  of 
Representatives. 

Section.  2.  1  The  House  of  Representatives  shall 

be  composed  of  Members  chosen  every  second  Year 
by  the  People  of  the  several  States,  and  the  Electors 
in  each  State  shall  have  the  Qualifications  requisite 
for  Electors  of  the  most  numerous  Branch  of  the 
State  Legislature. 

2  No  Person  shall  be  a  Representative  who  shall  not 
have  attained  to  the  Age  of  twenty-five  Years,  and 
been  seven  Years  a  Citizen  of  the  United  States,  and 
who  shall  not,  when  elected,  be  an  Inhabitant  of  that 
State  in  which  he  shall  be  chosen. 

201 


202  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


3  [Representatives  and  direct  Taxes  shall  be  appor¬ 
tioned  among  the  several  States  which  may  be  included 
within  this  Union,  according  to  their  respective  Num¬ 
bers,  which  shall  be  determined  by  adding  to  the  whole 
Number  of  free  Persons,  including  those  bound  to  Ser¬ 
vice  for  a  Term  of  Years,  and  excluding  Indians  not 
taxed,  three  fifths  of  all  other  Persons.]  The  actual 
Enumeration  shall  be  made  within  three  Years  after 
the  first  Meeting  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
and  within  every  subsequent  Term  of  ten  Years,  in 
such  Manner  as  they  shall  by  Law  direct.  The  Num¬ 
ber  of  Representatives  shall  not  exceed  one  for  every 
thirty  Thousand,  but  each  State  shall  have  at  Least 
one  Representative;  and  until  such  enumeration  shall 
be  made,  the  State  of  New  Hampshire  shall  be  entitled 
to  chuse  three,  Massachusetts  eight,  Rhode-Island  and 
Providence  Plantations  one,  Connecticut  five,  New- 
York  six,  New  Jersey  four,  Pennsylvania  eight,  Dela¬ 
ware  one,  Maryland  six,  Virginia  ten,  North  Carolina 
five,  South  Carolina  five,  and  Georgia  three. 

4  When  vacancies  happen  in  the  Representation 
from  any  State,  the  Executive  Authority  thereof  shall 
issue  Writs  of  Election  to  fill  such  Vacancies. 

5  The  House  of  Representatives  shall  chuse  their 
Speaker  and  other  Officers;  and  shall  have  the  sole 
Power  of  Impeachment. 

Section.  3.  1  The  Senate  of  the  United  States  shall 

be  composed  of  two  Senators  from  each  State,  chosen 
by  the  Legislature  thereof,  for  six  Years;  and  each 
Senator  shall  have  one  Vote. 

2  Immediately  after  they  shall  be  assembled  in  Con¬ 
sequence  of  the  first  Election,  they  shall  be  divided  as 
equally  as  may  be  into  three  Classes.  The  Seats  of  the 


CONSTITUTION  OF  UNITED  STATES  203 


Senators  of  the  first  Class  shall  be  vacated  at  the  Ex¬ 
piration  of  the  second  year,  of  the  second  Class  at  the 
Expiration  of  the  fourth  Year,  and  of  the  third  Class 
at  the  Expiration  of  the  sixth  Year,  so  that  one-third 
may  be  chosen  every  second  Year;  and  if  Vacancies 
happen  by  Resignation,  or  otherwise,  during  the  Re¬ 
cess  of  the  Legislature  of  any  State,  the  Executive 
thereof  may  make  temporary  Appointments  until  the 
next  Meeting  of  the  Legislature,  which  shall  then  fill 
such  Vacancies. 

3  No  Person  shall  be  a  Senator  who  shall  not  have  at¬ 
tained  to  the  Age  of  thi[r]ty  Years,  and  been  nine  Years 
a  Citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  who  shall  not,  when 
elected,  be  an  Inhabitant  of  that  State  for  which  he 
shall  be  chosen. 

4  The  Vice  President  of  the  United  States  shall  be 
President  of  the  Senate,  but  shall  have  no  Vote,  unless 
they  be  equally  divided. 

5  The  Senate  shall  chuse  their  other  Officers,  and 
also  a  President  pro  tempore,  in  the  Absence  of  the 
Vice  President,  or  when  he  shall  exercise  the  Office  of 
President  of  the  United  States. 

6  The  Senate  shall  have  the  sole  Power  to  try  all  Im¬ 
peachments.  When  sitting  for  that  Purpose,  they 
shall  be  on  Oath  or  Affirmation.  When  the  President 
of  the  United  States  is  tried,  the  Chief  Justice  shall  pre¬ 
side:  And  no  Person  shall  be  convicted  without  the 
Concurrence  of  two  thirds  of  the  Members  present. 

7  Judgment  in  Cases  of  Impeachment  shall  not  ex¬ 
tend  further  than  to  removal  from  Office,  and  dis¬ 
qualification  to  hold  and  enjoy  any  Office  of  honor, 
Trust  or  Profit  under  the  United  States:  but  the  Party 
convicted  shall  nevertheless  be  liable  and  subject  to 


204  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


Indictment,  Trial,  Judgment  and  Punishment,  accord¬ 
ing  to  Law. 

Section.  4.  1  The  Times,  Places  and  Manner  of 

holding  Elections  for  Senators  and  Representatives, 
shall  be  prescribed  in  each  State  by  the  Legislature 
thereof;  but  the  Congress  may  at  any  time  by  Law 
make  or  alter  such  Regulations,  except  as  to  the  Places 
of  chusing  Senators. 

2  The  Congress  shall  assemble  at  least  once  in  every 
Year,  and  such  Meeting  shall  be  on  the  first  Monday 
in  December,  unless  they  shall  by  Law  appoint  a 
different  Day. 

Section.  5.  1  Each  House  shall  be  the  Judge  of  the 

Elections,  Returns  and  Qualifications  of  its  own  Mem¬ 
bers,  and  a  Majority  of  each  shall  constitute  a  Quorum 
to  do  Business;  but  a  smaller  Number  may  adjourn 
from  day  to  day,  and  may  be  authorized  to  compel  the 
Attendance  of  absent  Members,  in  such  Manner,  and 
under  such  Penalties  as  each  House  may  provide. 

2  Each  House  may  determine  the  Rules  of  its  Pro¬ 
ceedings,  punish  its  Members  for  disorderly  Behavior, 
and,  with  the  Concurrence  of  two  thirds,  expel  a 
Member. 

3  Each  House  shall  keep  a  Journal  of  its  Proceedings, 
and  from  time  to  time  publish  the  same,  excepting 
such  Parts  as  may  in  their  Judgment  require  Secrecy; 
and  the  Yeas  and  Nays  of  the  Members  of  either  House 
on  any  question  shall,  at  the  Desire  of  one  fifth  of  those 
present,  be  entered  on  the  Journal. 

4  Neither  House,  during  the  Session  of  Congress, 
shall,  without  the  Consent  of  the  other,  adjourn  for 
more  than  three  days,  nor  to  any  other  Place  than  that 
in  which  the  two  Houses  shall  be  sitting. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  UNITED  STATES  205 


Section.  6.  1  The  Senators  and  Representatives 

shall  receive  a  Compensation  for  their  Services,  to  be 
ascertained  by  Law,  and  paid  out  of  the  Treasury  of 
the  United  States.  They  shall  in  all  Cases,  except 
Treason,  Felony  and  Breach  of  the  Peace,  be  privileged 
from  Arrest  during  their  Attendance  at  the  Session  of 
their  respective  Houses,  and  in  going  to  and  returning 
from  the  same;  and  for  any  Speech  or  Debate  in  either 
House,  they  shall  not  be  questioned  in  any  other  Place. 

2  No  Senator  or  Representative  shall,  during  the 
Time  for  which  he  was  elected,  be  appointed  to  any 
civil  Office  under  the  Authority  of  the  United  States, 
which  shall  have  been  created,  or  the  Emoluments 
whereof  shall  have  been  encreased  during  such  time; 
and  no  Person  holding  any  Office  under  the  United 
States,  shall  be  a  Member  of  either  House  during  his 
Continuance  in  Office. 

Section.  7.  1  All  Bills  for  raising  Revenue  shall 

originate  in  the  House  of  Representatives;  but  the 
Senate  may  propose  or  concur  with  Amendments  as  on 
other  Bills. 

2  Every  Bill  which  shall  have  passed  the  House  of 
Representatives  and  the  Senate,  shall,  before  it  be¬ 
come  a  Law,  be  presented  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States;  If  he  approve  he  shall  sign  it,  but  if  not 
he  shall  return  it,  with  his  Objections  to  that  House  in 
which  it  shall  have  originated,  who  shall  enter  the  Ob¬ 
jections  at  large  on  their  Journal,  and  proceed  to  re¬ 
consider  it.  If  after  such  Reconsideration  two  thirds 
of  that  House  shall  agree  to  pass  the  Bill,  it  shall  be 
sent,  together  with  the  Objections,  to  the  other  House, 
by  which  it  shall  likewise  be  reconsidered,  and  if  ap¬ 
proved  by  two  thirds  of  that  House,  it  shall  become  a 


206  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


Law.  But  in  all  such  Cases  the  Votes  of  both  Houses 
shall  be  determined  by  Yeas  and  Nays,  and  the  Names 
of  the  Persons  voting  for  and  against  the  Bill  shall  be 
entered  on  the  Journal  of  each  House  respectively.  If 
any  Bill  shall  not  be  returned  by  the  President  within 
ten  Days  (Sundays  excepted)  after  it  shall  have  been 
presented  to  him,  the  Same  shall  be  a  Law,  in  like 
Manner  as  if  he  had  signed  it,  unless  the  Congress  by 
their  Adjournment  prevent  its  Return,  in  which  Case 
it  shall  not  be  a  Law. 

3  Every  Order,  Resolution,  or  Vote  to  which  the 
Concurrence  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representa¬ 
tives  may  be  necessary  (except  on  a  question  of  Ad¬ 
journment)  shall  be  presented  to  the  President  of  the 
United  Stales;  and  before  the  Same  shall  take  Effect, 
shall  be  approved  by  him,  or  being  disapproved  by  him, 
shall  be  repassed  by  two  thirds  of  the  Senate  and 
House  of  Representatives,  according  to  the  Rules  and 
Limitations  prescribed  in  the  Case  of  a  Bill. 

Section.  8.  1  The  Congress  shall  have  Power  To 

lay  and  collect  Taxes,  Duties,  Imposts  and  Excises,  to 
pay  the  Debts  and  provide  for  the  common  Defence 
and  general  Welfare  of  the  United  States;  but  all  Du¬ 
ties,  Imposts  and  Excises  shall  be  uniform  throughout 
the  United  States; 

2  To  borrow  Money  on  the  credit  of  the  United 
States; 

3  To  regulate  Commerce  with  foreign  Nations,  and 
among  the  several  States,  and  with  the  Indian  Tribes; 

4  To  establish  an  uniform  Rule  of  Naturalization, 
and  uniform  Laws  on  the  subject  of  Bankruptcies 
throughout  the  United  States; 

5  To  coin  Money,  regulate  the  Value  thereof,  and  of 


CONSTITUTION  OF  UNITED  STATES  207 


foreign  Coin,  and  fix  the  Standard  of  Weights  and 
Measures; 

6  To  provide  for  the  Punishment  of  counterfeiting 
the  Securities  and  current  Coin  of  the  United  States; 

7  To  establish  Post  Offices  and  post  Roads; 

8  To  promote  the  Progress  of  Science  and  useful  Arts, 
by  securing  for  limited  Times  to  Authors  and  Inven¬ 
tors  the  exclusive  Right  to  their  respective  Writings 
and  Discoveries; 

9  To  constitute  Tribunals  inferior  to  the  supreme 
Court; 

10  To  define  and  punish  Piracies  and  Felonies  com¬ 
mitted  on  the  high  Seas,  and  Offences  against  the  Law 
of  Nations; 

11  To  declare  War,  grant  Letters  of  Marque  and  Re¬ 
prisal,  and  make  Rules  concerning  Captures  on  Land 
and  Water; 

12  To  raise  and  support  Armies,  but  no  Appropria¬ 
tion  of  Money  to  that  Use  shall  be  for  a  longer  Term 
than  two  Years; 

13  To  provide  and  maintain  a  Navy; 

14  To  make  Rules  for  the  Government  and  Regula¬ 
tion  of  the  land  and  naval  Forces; 

15  To  provide  for  calling  forth  the  Militia  to  execute 
the  Laws  of  the  Union,  suppress  Insurrections  and 
repel  Invasions; 

16  To  provide  for  organizing,  arming,  and  disciplin¬ 
ing,  the  Militia,  and  for  governing  such  Part  of  them 
as  may  be  employed  in  the  Service  of  the  United  States, 
reserving  to  the  States  respectively,  the  Appointment 
of  the  Officers,  and  the  Authority  of  training  the  Mili¬ 
tia  according  to  the  discipline  prescribed  by  Congress; 

17  To  exercise  exclusive  Legislation  in  all  Cases 


208  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


whatsoever,  over  such  District  (not  exceeding  ten 
Miles  square)  as  may,  by  Cession  of  particular  States, 
and  the  Acceptance  of  Congress,  become  the  Seat  of 
the  Government  of  the  United  States,  and  to  exercise 
like  Authority  over  all  places  purchased  by  the  Con¬ 
sent  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  in  which  the 
Same  shall  be,  for  the  Erection  of  Forts,  Magazines, 
Arsenals,  dock- Yards,  and  other  needful  Buildings; 
—  And 

18  To  make  all  Laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and 
proper  for  carrying  into  Execution  the  foregoing  Pow¬ 
ers,  and  all  other  Powers  vested  by  this  Constitution 
in  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any 
Department  or  Officer  thereof. 

Section.  9.  1  The  Migration  or  Importation  of  such 
Persons  as  any  of  the  States  now  existing  shall  think 
proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the  Con¬ 
gress  prior  to  the  Year  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  eight,  but  a  Tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on 
such  Importation,  not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each 
person. 

2  The  Privilege  of  the  Writ  of  Habeas  Corpus  shall 
not  be  suspended,  unless  when  in  Cases  of  Rebellion  or 
Invasion  the  public  Safety  may  require  it. 

3  No  Bill  of  Attainder  or  expost  facto  Law  shall  be 
passed. 

4  No  Capitation,  or  other  direct,  tax  shall  be  laid, 
unless  in  Proportion  to  the  Census  or  Enumeration 
herein  before  directed  to  be  taken. 

5  No  Tax  or  Duty  shall  be  laid  on  Articles  exported 
from  any  State. 

6  No  Preference  shall  be  given  by  any  Regulation  of 
Commerce  or  Revenue  to  the  Ports  of  one  State  over 


CONSTITUTION  OF  UNITED  STATES  209 


those  of  another:  nor  shall  Vessels  bound  to,  or  from, 
one  State,  be  obliged  to  enter,  clear,  or  pay  Duties 
in  another. 

7  No  Money  shall  be  drawn  from  the  Treasury,  but 
in  Consequence  of  Appropriations  made  by  Law;  and 
a  regular  Statement  and  Account  of  the  Receipts  and 
Expenditures  of  all  public  Money  shall  be  published 
from  time  to  time. 

8  No  Title  of  Nobility  shall  be  granted  by  the  United 
States:  And  no  Person  holding  any  Office  of  Profit  or 
Trust  under  them,  shall,  without  the  Consent  of  the 
Congress,  accept  of  any  present,  Emolument,  Office,  or 
Title,  of  any  kind  whatever,  from  any  King,  Prince,  or 
foreign  State. 

Section.  10.  1  No  State  shall  enter  into  any  Trea¬ 

ty,  Alliance,  or  Confederation;  grant  Letters  of 
Marque  or  Reprisal;  coin  Money;  emit  Bills  of  Credit; 
make  any  Thing  but  gold  and  silver  Coin  a  Tender 
in  Payment  of  Debts;  pass  any  Bill  of  Attainder,  ex 
post  facto  Law,  or  Law  impairing  the  Obligation  of 
Contracts,  or  grant  any  Title  of  Nobility. 

2  No  State  shall,  without  the  Consent  of  the  Con¬ 
gress,  lay  any  Imposts  or  Duties  on  imports  or  Ex¬ 
ports,  except  what  may  be  absolutely  necessary  for  ex¬ 
ecuting  it’s  inspection  Laws :  and  the  net  Produce  of  all 
Duties  and  Imposts,  laid  by  any  State  on  Imports  or 
Exports,  shall  be  for  the  Use  of  the  Treasury  of  the 
United  States;  and  all  such  Laws  shall  be  subject  to  the 
Revision  and  Controul  of  the  Congress. 

3  No  State  shall,  without  the  Consent  of  Congress, 
lay  any  Duty  of  Tonnage,  keep  Troops,  or  Ships  of 
War  in  time  of  Peace,  enter  into  any  Agreement  or 
Compact  with  another  State,  or  with  a  foreign  Power, 


14 


£10  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


or  engage  in  War,  unless  actually  invaded,  or  in  such 
imminent  Danger  as  will  not  admit  of  delay. 

ARTICLE.  II. 

Section.  1.  1  The  executive  Power  shall  be  vested 

in  a  President  of  the  United  States  of  America.  He 
shall  hold  his  Office  during  the  Term  of  four  Years, 
and,  together  with  the  Vice  President,  chosen  for  the 
same  Term,  be  elected,  as  follows 

2  Each  State  shall  appoint,  in  such  Manner  as  the 
Legislature  thereof  may  direct,  a  Number  of  Electors, 
equal  to  the  whole  Number  of  Senators  and  Repre¬ 
sentatives  to  which  the  State  may  be  entitled  in  the 
Congress:  but  no  Senator  or  Representative,  or  Person 
holding  an  Office  of  Trust  or  Profit  under  the  United 
States,  shall  be  appointed  an  Elector. 

3  The  Congress  may  determine  the  Time  of  chusing 
the  Electors,  and  the  Day  on  which  they  shall  give 
their  Votes;  which  Day  shall  be  the  same  throughout 
the  United  States. 

4  No  Person  except  a  natural  born  Citizen,  or  a  Citi¬ 
zen  of  the  United  States,  at  the  time  of  the  Adoption  of 
this  Constitution,  shall  be  eligible  to  the  Office  of  Presi¬ 
dent;  neither  shall  any  Person  be  eligible  to  that  Office 
who  shall  not  have  attained  to  the  Age  of  thirty  five 
Years,  and  been  fourteen  Years  a  Resident  within  the 
United  States. 

5  In  Case  of  the  Removal  of  the  President  from  Of¬ 
fice,  or  of  his  Death,  Resignation,  or  Inability  to  dis¬ 
charge  the  Powers  and  Duties  of  the  said  Office,  the 
same  shall  devolve  on  the  Vice  President,  and  the  Con¬ 
gress  may  by  Law  provide  for  the  Case  of  Removal, 


CONSTITUTION  OF  UNITED  STATES  211 


Death,  Resignation,  or  Inability,  both  of  the  President 
and  Vice  President,  declaring  what  Officer  shall  then 
act  as  President,  and  such  Officer  shall  act  accordingly, 
until  the  Disability  be  removed,  or  a  President  shall 
be  elected. 

6  The  President  shall,  at  stated  Times,  receive  for 
his  Services,  a  Compensation,  which  shall  neither  be 
encreased  nor  dimished  during  the  Period  for  which  he 
shall  have  been  elected,  and  he  shall  not  receive  within 
that  Period  any  other  Emolument  from  the  United 
States,  or  any  of  them. 

7  Before  he  enter  on  the  Execution  of  his  Office,  he 
shall  take  the  following  Oath  or  Affirmation:  —  “I  do 
solemnly  swear  (or  affirm)  that  I  will  faithfully  execute 
the  Office  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and 
will  to  the  best  of  my  ability,  preserve,  protect  and 
defend  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.” 

Section.  2.  1  The  President  shall  be  Commander 

in  Chief  of  the  Army  and  Navy  of  the  United  States, 
and  of  the  Militia  of  the  several  States,  when  called  in¬ 
to  the  actual  Service  of  the  United  States;  he  may  re¬ 
quire  the  Opinion,  in  writing,  of  the  principal  Officer  in 
each  of  the  executive  Departments,  upon  any  Subject 
relating  to  the  Duties  of  their  respective  Offices,  and 
he  shall  have  Power  to  grant  Reprieves  and  Pardons 
for  Offences  against  the  United  States,  except  in  Cases 
of  Impeachment. 

2  He  shall  have  Power,  by  and  with  the  Advice  and 
Consent  of  the  Senate,  to  make  Treaties,  provided  two 
thirds  of  the  Senators  present  concur;  and  he  shall 
nominate,  and  by  and  with  the  Advice  and  Consent  of 
the  Senate,  shall  appoint  Ambassadors,  other  public 
Ministers  and  Consuls,  Judges  of  the  supreme  Court, 


212  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


and  all  other  Officers  of  the  United  States,  whose  Ap¬ 
pointments  are  not  herein  otherwise  provided  for,  and 
which  shall  be  established  by  Law:  but  the  Congress 
may  by  Law  vest  the  Appointment  of  such  inferior  Of¬ 
ficers,  as  they  think  proper,  in  the  President  alone,  in 
the  Courts  of  Law,  or  in  the  Heads  of  Departments. 

3  The  President  shall  have  Power  to  fill  up  all  Vacan¬ 
cies  that  may  happen  during  the  Recess  of  the  Senate, 
by  granting  Commissions  which  shall  expire  at  the  End 
of  their  next  Session. 

Section.  3.  He  shall  from  time  to  time  give  to  the 
Congress  Information  of  the  State  of  the  Union,  and 
recommend  to  their  Consideration  such  Measures  as 
he  shall  judge  necessary  and  expedient;  he  may,  on  ex¬ 
traordinary  Occasions,  convene  both  Houses,  or  either 
of  them,  and  in  Case  of  Disagreement  between  them, 
with  Respect  to  the  Time  of  Adjournment,  he  may  ad¬ 
journ  them  to  such  Time  as  he  shall  think  proper;  he 
shall  receive  Ambassadors  and  other  public  Minis¬ 
ters;  he  shall  take  Care  that  the  Laws  be  faithfully  ex¬ 
ecuted,  and  shall  Commission  all  the  Officers  of  the 
United  States. 

Section.  4.  The  President,  Vice  President  and 
all  civil  Officers  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  re¬ 
moved  from  Office  on  Impeachment  for,  and  Convic¬ 
tion  of.  Treason,  Bribery,  or  other  high  Crimes  and 
Misdemeanors. 


ARTICLE  III. 

Section.  1.  The  judicial  Power  of  the  United 
States,  shall  be  vested  in  one  supreme  Court,  and  in 
such  inferior  Courts  as  the  Congress  may  from  time  to 


CONSTITUTION  OF  UNITED  STATES  213 


time  ordain  and  establish.  The  Judges,  both  of  the 
supreme  and  inferior  Courts,  shall  hold  their  Offices 
during  good  Behaviour,  and  shall,  at  stated  Times,  re¬ 
ceive  for  their  Services,  a  Compensation,  which  shall 
not  be  diminished  during  their  Continuance  in  Office. 

Section.  2.  1  The  judicial  Power  shall  extend  to  all 

Cases,  in  Law  and  Equity,  arising  under  this  Constitu¬ 
tion,  the  Laws  of  the  United  States,  and  Treaties 
made,  or  which  shall  be  made,  under  their  Authority; 
—  to  all  Cases  affecting  Ambassadors,  other  public 
Ministers  and  Consuls;  —  to  all  Cases  of  admiralty 
and  maritime  Jurisdiction;  —  to  Controversies  to 
which  the  United  States  shall  be  a  Party;  —  to  Con¬ 
troversies  between  two  or  more  States;  —  between  a 
State  and  Citizens  of  another  State  —  between  Citi¬ 
zens  of  different  States,  —  between  Citizens  of  the 
same  State  claiming  Lands  under  Grants  of  different 
States,  and  between  a  State,  or  the  Citizens  thereof, 
and  foreign  States,  Citizens  or  Subjects; 

2  In  all  Cases  affecting  Ambassadors,  other  public 
Ministers  and  Consuls,  and  those  in  which  a  State 
shall  be  Party,  the  supreme  Court  shall  have  original 
Jurisdiction.  In  all  the  other  Cases  before  mentioned, 
the  supreme  Court  shall  have  appellate  Jurisdiction, 
both  as  to  Law  and  Fact,  with  such  Exceptions,  and 
under  such  Regulations  as  the  Congress  shall  make. 

3  The  Trial  of  all  Crimes,  except  in  Cases  of  Im¬ 
peachment,  shall  be  by  Jury;  and  such  Trial  shall  be 
held  in  the  State  where  the  said  Crimes  shall  have  been 
committed;  but  when  not  committed  within  any  State, 
the  Trial  shall  be  at  such  Place  or  Places  as  the 
Congress  may  by  Law  have  directed. 

Section.  3.  1  Treason  against  the  United  States, 


214  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


shall  consist  only  in  levying  War  against  them,  or  in 
adhering  to  their  Enemies,  giving  them  Aid  and  Com¬ 
fort.  No  Person  shall  be  convicted  of  Treason  unless 
on  the  Testimony  of  two  Witnesses  to  the  same  overt 
Act,  or  on  Confession  in  open  Court. 

2  The  Congress  shall  have  Power  to  declare  the  Pun¬ 
ishment  of  Treason,  but  no  Attainder  of  Treason  shall 
work  Corruption  of  Blood,  or  Forfeiture  except  during 
the  Life  of  the  Person  attainted. 

ARTICLE  IV. 

Section.  1.  Full  Faith  and  Credit  shall  be  given  in 
each  State  to  the  public  Acts,  Records,  and  judicial 
Proceedings  of  every  other  State.  And  the  Congress 
may  by  general  Laws  prescribe  the  Manner  in  which 
such  Acts,  Records  and  Proceedings  shall  be  proved, 
and  the  Effect  thereof. 

Section.  2.  1  The  Citizens  of  each  State  shall  be 

entitled  to  all  Privileges  and  Immunities  of  Citizens  in 
the  several  States. 

2  A  person  charged  in  any  State  with  Treason,  Fel¬ 
ony,  or  other  Crime,  who  shall  flee  from  Justice,  and 
be  found  in  another  State,  shall  on  Demand  of  the 
Executive  Authority  of  the  State  from  which  he  fled, 
be  delivered  up  to  be  removed  to  the  State  having 
jurisdiction  of  the  Crime. 

3  No  Person  held  to  Service  or  Labour  in  one  State, 
under  the  Laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall, 
in  Consequence  of  any  Law  or  Regulation  therein,  be 
discharged  from  such  Service  or  Labour,  but  shall 
be  delivered  up  on  Claim  of  the  Party  to  whom  such 
Service  or  Labour  may  be  due. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  UNITED  STATES  215 


Section.  3.  1  New  States  may  be  admitted  by  the 

Congress  into  this  Union;  but  no  new  State  shall  be 
formed  or  erected  within  the  Jurisdiction  of  any  other 
State;  nor  any  State  be  formed  by  the  Junction  of  two 
or  more  States,  or  Parts  of  States,  without  the  Consent 
of  the  Legislature  of  the  States  concerned  as  well  as  of 
the  Congress. 

2  The  Congress  shall  have  Power  to  dispose  of  and 
make  all  needful  Rules  and  Regulations  respecting  the 
Territory  or  other  Property  belonging  to  the  United 
States;  and  nothing  in  this  Constitution  shall  be  so 
construed  as  to  Prejudice  any  Claims  of  the  United 
States,  or  of  any  particular  State. 

Section  4.  The  United  States  shall  guarantee  to 
every  State  in  this  Union  a  Republican  Form  of  Gov¬ 
ernment,  and  shall  protect  each  of  them  against  Inva¬ 
sion;  and  on  Application  of  the  Legislature,  or  of  the 
Executive  (when  the  Legislature  cannot  be  convened) 
against  domestic  Violence. 

ARTICLE  V. 

The  Congress,  whenever  two  thirds  of  both  Houses 
shall  deem  it  necessary,  shall  propose  Amendments  to 
this  Constitution,  or,  on  the  Application  of  the  Legis¬ 
latures  of  two  thirds  of  the  several  States,  shall  call  a 
Convention  for  proposing  Amendments,  which,  in 
either  Case,  shall  be  valid  to  all  Intents  and  Purposes, 
as  Part  of  this  Constitution,  when  ratified  by  the  Leg¬ 
islatures  of  three  fourths  of  the  several  States,  or  by 
Conventions  in  three  fourths  thereof,  as  the  one  or  the 
other  Mode  of  Ratification  may  be  proposed  by  the 
Congress;  Provided  that  no  Amendment  which  may  be 


216  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


made  prior  to  the  Year  One  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  eight  shall  in  any  Manner  affect  the  first  and 
fourth  Clauses  in  the  Ninth  Section  of  the  first  Article; 
and  that  no  State,  without  its  Consent,  shall  be  de¬ 
prived  of  its  equal  Suffrage  in  the  Senate. 

ARTICLE.  VI. 

1  All  Debts  contracted  and  Engagements  entered 
into,  before  the  Adoption  of  this  Constitution,  shall  be 
as  valid  against  the  United  States  under  this  Constitu¬ 
tion,  as  under  the  Confederation. 

2  This  Constitution,  and  the  Laws  of  the  United 
States  which  shall  be  made  in  Pursuance  thereof;  and 
all  Treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be  made,  under  the 
Authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  the  supreme 
Law  of  the  Land;  and  the  Judges  in  every  State  shall 
be  bound  thereby,  any  Thing  in  the  Constitution  or 
Laws  of  any  States  to  the  Contrary  notwithstanding. 

3  The  Senators  and  Representatives  before  men¬ 
tioned,  and  the  Members  of  the  several  State  Legisla¬ 
tures,  and  all  executive  and  judicial  Officers,  both  of 
the  United  States  and  of  the  several  States,  shall  be 
bound  by  Oath  or  Affirmation,  to  support  this  Con¬ 
stitution;  but  no  religious  Test  shall  ever  be  required 
as  a  Qualification  to  any  Office  or  public  Trust  under 
the  United  States. 

ARTICLE  VII. 

The  Ratification  of  the  Conventions  of  nine  States, 
shall  be  sufficient  for  the  Establishment  of  this  Con¬ 
stitution  between  the  States  so  ratifying  the  Same. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  UNITED  STATES  217 


Done  in  Convention  by  the  Unanimous  Consent  of  the 
States  present  the  Seventeenth  Day  of  September 
in  the  Year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  seven  hun¬ 
dred  and  Eighty  seven,  and  of  the  Independance 
of  the  United  States  of  America  the  Twelfth  In 
Witness  whereof  We  have  hereunto  subscribed 
our  Names, 


G°:  Washington  — 
Presidt.  and  Deputy  from  Virginia. 


John  Langdon 


New  Hampshire. 

Nicholas  Gilman 


Massachusetts. 


Nathaniel  Gorham  Rufus  King 


Connecticut. 


Wm.  Saml.  Johnson  Roger  Sherman 


New  York. 


Alexander  Hamilton 


New  Jersey. 


\ 


Wil:  Livingston  Wm.  Paterson 

David  Brearley  Jona:  Dayton 


Pennsylvania. 


Robt.  Morris 
Geo.  Clymer 


Thomas  Mifflin 


B.  Franklin 


Thos.  Fitzsimons 
Jared  Ingersoll 
James  Wilson 
Gouv  Morris 


218  FATHERS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


Delaware. 


Geo  :  Read  Richard  Bassett 

Gunning  Bedford  Jun  Jaco:  Broom 
John  Dickinson 

Maryland. 

James  McHenry  Danl.  Carroll 

Dan  of  St  Thos  Jenifer 

Virginia. 

John  Blair  —  James  Madison  Jr0 


North  Carolina. 

Wm.  Blount  Hu  Williamson 

Richd.  Dobbs  Spaigiit 


South  Carolina. 

J.  Rutledge,  Charles  Pinckney 

Charles  Cotesworth  Pierce  Butler 
Pinckney 


Georgia. 

William  Few  Abr  Baldwin 


Attest 


William  Jackson  Secretary 


I 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE 

There  are  many  comprehensive  histories  which  in¬ 
clude  the  period  covered  by  the  present  volume,  of 
which  a  few  —  without  disparaging  the  others  —  are 
deserving  of  mention  for  some  particular  reason. 
David  Ramsay’s  History  of  the  American  Revolution, 
2  vols.  (1789,  and  subsequently  reprinted),  gives  but 
little  space  to  this  particular  period,  but  it  reveals  the 
contemporary  point  of  view.  Richard  Hildreth’s  His¬ 
tory  of  the  United  States,  6  vols.  (1849-1852),  is  another 
early  work  that  is  still  of  value,  although  it  is  written 
with  a  Federalist  bias.  J.  B.  McMaster’s  History  of 
the  People  of  the  United  States  from  the  Revolution  to  the 
Civil  War,  8  vols.  (1883-1913),  presents  a  kaleido¬ 
scopic  series  of  pictures  gathered  largely  from  contem¬ 
porary  newspapers,  throwing  light  upon,  and  add¬ 
ing  color  to  the  story.  E.  M.  Avery’s  History  of  the 
United  States ,  of  which  seven  volumes  have  been  pub¬ 
lished  (1904-1910),  is  remarkable  for  its  illustrations 
and  reproductions  of  prints,  documents,  and  maps. 
Edward  Channing’s  History  of  the  United  States ,  of 
which  four  volumes  have  appeared  (1905-1917),  is 
the  latest,  most  readable,  and  probably  the  best  of 
these  comprehensive  histories. 

Although  it  was  subsequently  published  as  Volume 
vi  in  a  revised  edition  of  his  History  of  the  United  States 

219 


220 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE 


of  America,  George  Bancroft’s  History  of  the  Formation 
of  the  Constitution,  2  vols.  (1882),  is  really  a  separate 
work.  The  author  appears  at  his  best  in  these  vol¬ 
umes  and  has  never  been  entirely  superseded  by  later 
writers.  G.  T.  Curtis’s  History  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  2  vols.  (1854),  which  also  subsequently 
appeared  as  Volume  i  of  his  Constitutional  History  of 
the  United  States ,  is  one  of  the  standard  works,  but 
does  not  retain  quite  the  same  hold  that  Bancroft’s 
volumes  do. 

Of  the  special  works  more  nearly  covering  the  same 
field  as  the  present  volume,  A.  C.  McLaughlin’s  The 
Confederation  and  the  Constitution  (1905),  in  the  Amer¬ 
ican  Nation,  is  distinctly  the  best.  John  Fiske’s  Criti¬ 
cal  Period  of  American  History  (1888),  written  with 
the  clearness  of  presentation  and  charm  of  style  which 
are  characteristic  of  the  author,  is  an  interesting  and 
readable  comprehensive  account.  Richard  Frothing- 
ham’s  Rise  of  the  Republic  of  the  United  States  (1872; 
6th  ed.  1895),  tracing  the  two  ideas  of  local  self-govern¬ 
ment  and  of  union,  begins  with  early  colonial  times 
and  culminates  in  the  Constitution. 

The  treaty  of  peace  opens  up  the  whole  field  of  diplo¬ 
matic  history,  which  has  a  bibliography  of  its  own. 
But  E.  S.  Corwin’s  French  Policy  and  the  American  Al¬ 
liance  (1916)  should  be  mentioned  as  the  latest  and 
best  work,  although  it  lays  more  stress  upon  the  phases 
indicated  by  the  title.  C.  H.  Van  Tyne’s  Loyalists  in 
the  American  Revolution  (1902)  remains  the  standard 
work  on  this  subject,  but  special  studies  are  appearing 
from  time  to  time  which  are  changing  our  point  of  view. 

The  following  books  on  economic  and  industrial  as¬ 
pects  are  not  for  popular  reading,  but  are  rather  for 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE 


221 


reference:  E.  R.  Johnson  et  al .,  History  of  the  Domestic 
and  Foreign  Commerce  of  the  United  States,  2  vols.  (1915); 
V.  S.  Clark,  History  of  the  Manufactures  of  the  United 
States,  1607-1860  (1916).  G.  S.  Callender  has  written 
short  introductions  to  the  various  chapters  of  his  Selec¬ 
tions  from  the  Economic  History  of  the  United  States 
(1909),  which  are  brilliant  interpretations  of  great 
value.  P.  J.  Treat’s  The  National  Land  System ,  1785- 
1820  (1910),  gives  the  most  satisfactory  account  of  the 
subject  indicated  by  the  title.  Of  entirely  different 
character  is  Theodore  Roosevelt’s  Winning  of  the  West, 
4  vols.  (1889-96;  published  subsequently  in  various 
editions),  which  is  both  scholarly  and  of  fascinating 
interest  on  the  subject  of  the  early  expansion  into 
the  West. 

On  the  most  important  subject  of  all,  the  formation 
of  the  Constitution,  the  material  ordinarily  wanted 
can  be  found  in  Max  Farrand’s  Records  of  the  Federal 
Convention,  3  vols.  (1910),  and  the  author  has  sum¬ 
marized  the  results  of  his  studies  in  The  Framing  of  the 
Constitution  (1913).  C.  A.  Beard’s  An  Economic  In¬ 
terpretation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  (1913) 
gives  some  interesting  and  valuable  facts  regarding 
economic  aspects  of  the  formation  of  the  Constitution, 
and  particularly  on  the  subject  of  investments  in 
government  securities.  There  is  no  satisfactory  ac¬ 
count  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  but  the  de¬ 
bates  in  many  of  the  State  conventions  are  included 
in  Jonathan  Elliot’s  Debates  on  the  Federal  Constitu¬ 
tion,  5  vols.  (1836-1845,  subsequently  reprinted  in 
many  editions). 

A  few  special  works  upon  the  adoption  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution  in  the  individual  States  may  be  mentioned: 


222 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE 


H.  B.  Grigsby’s  History  of  the  Virginia  Federal  Con - 
vention  of  1788 ,  Virginia  Historical  Society  Collections, 
N.  S.,  ix  and  x  (1890-91);  McMaster  and  Stone’s 
Pennsylvania  and  the  Federal  Constitution ,  1787-88 
(1888);  S.  B.  Harding’s  Contest  over  the  Ratification  of 
the  Federal  Constitution  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts 
(1896);  O.  G.  Libby’s  The  Geographical  Distribution  of 
the  Vote  of  the  Thirteen  States  on  the  Federal  Constitution , 
1787-1788  (University  of  Wisconsin,  Bulletin ,  Econom¬ 
ics ,  Political  Science ,  and  History  Series ,  i,  No.  1, 1894). 

Contemporary  differences  of  opinion  upon  the  Con¬ 
stitution  will  be  found  in  P.  L.  Ford’s  Pamphlets  on  the 
Constitution ,  etc.  (1888).  The  most  valuable  commen¬ 
tary  on  the  Constitution,  The  Federalist ,  is  to  be  found 
in  several  editions  of  which  the  more  recent  are  by  E. 
H.  Scott  (1895)  and  P.  L.  Ford  (1898). 

A  large  part  of  the  so-called  original  documents  or 
first-hand  sources  of  information  is  to  be  found  in  let¬ 
ters  and  private  papers  of  prominent  men.  For  most 
readers  there  is  nothing  better  than  the  American  States¬ 
men  Series ,  from  which  the  following  might  be  selected : 
H.  C.  Lodge’s  George  Washington  ( 2  vols.,  1889)  and 
Alexander  Hamilton  (1882);  J.  T.  Morse’s  Benjamin  , 
Franklin  (1889),  John  Adams  (1885),  and  Thomas  Jef¬ 
ferson  (1883) ;  Theodore  Roosevelt’s  Gouverneur  Morris, 
(1888).  Other  readable  volumes  are  P.  L.  Ford’s  The 
True  George  Washington  (1896)  and  The  Many-sided 
Franklin  (1899) ;  F.  S.  Oliver’s  Alexander  Hamilton,  An 
Essay  on  American  Union  (Newed.  London,  1907);  W. 
G.  Brown’s  Life  of  Oliver  Ellsworth  (1905);  A.  McL. 
Hamilton’s  The  Intimate  Life  of  Alexander  Hamilton 
(1910);  James  Schouler’s  Thomas  Jefferson  (1893); 
Gaillard  Hunt’s  Life  of  James  Madison  (1902). 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE 


223 


Of  the  collections  of  documents  it  may  be  worth 
while  to  notice:  Documentary  History  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  of  the  United  States,  5  vols.  (1894-1905);  B.  P. 
Poore’s  Federal  and  State  Constitutions,  Colonial  Char¬ 
ters,  etc.,  2  vols.  (1877);  F.  N.  Thorpe’s  The  Federal  and 
State  Constitutions,  Colonial  Charters ,  and  other  Organic 
Laws,  7  vols.  (1909);  and  the  Journals  of  the  Conti¬ 
nental  Congress  (1904-1914),  edited  from  the  original 
records  in  the  Library  of  Congress  by  Worthington  C. 
Ford  and  Gaillard  Hunt,  of  which  23  volumes  have 
appeared,  bringing  the  records  down  through  1782. 


/ 


NOTES  ON  THE  PORTRAITS  OF  MEMBERS 
OF  THE  FEDERAL  CONVENTION  WHO 
SIGNED  THE  CONSTITUTION 

By  Victor  Hugo  Paltsits 

Forty  signatures  were  attached  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  in  the  Federal  Convention  on 
September  17,  1787,  by  thirty-nine  delegates,  repre¬ 
senting  twelve  States,  and  the  secretary  of  the  Con¬ 
vention,  as  the  attesting  officer.  George  Washing¬ 
ton,  who  signed  as  president  of  the  Convention,  was 
a  delegate  from  Virginia.  There  are  reproduced  in 
this  volume  the  effigies  or  pretended  effigies  of  thirty- 
seven  of  them,  from  etchings  by  Albert  Rosenthal 
in  an  extra-illustrated  volume  devoted  to  the  Mem¬ 
bers  of  the  Federal  Convention,  1787,  in  the  Thomas 
Addis  Emmet  Collection  owned  by  the  New  York 
Public  Library.  The  autographs  are  from  the  same 
source.  This  series  presents  no  portraits  of  David 
Brearley  of  New  Jersey,  Thomas  Fitzsimons  of  Pennsyl¬ 
vania,  and  Jacob  Broom  of  Delaware.  With  respect 
to  the  others  we  give  such  information  as  Albert  Ro¬ 
senthal,  the  Philadelphia  artist,  inscribed  on  each  por¬ 
trait  and  also  such  other  data  as  have  been  unearthed 
from  the  correspondence  of  Dr.  Emmet,  preserved  in  the 
Manuscript  Division  of  the  New  York  Public  Library. 

Considerable  controversy  has  raged,  on  and  off,  but 
especially  of  late,  in  regard  to  the  painted  and  etched 
is  225 


226 


NOTES  ON  PORTRAITS 


portraits  which  Rosenthal  produced  nearly  a  gener¬ 
ation  ago,  and  in  particular  respecting  portraits  which 
were  hung  in  Independence  Hall,  Philadelphia.  State¬ 
ments  in  the  case  by  Rosenthal  and  by  the  late  Charles 
Henry  Hart  are  in  the  American  Art  News ,  March  3, 
1917,  p.  4.  See  also  Hart’s  paper  on  bogus  American 
portraits  in  Annual  Report ,  1913,  of  the  American  His¬ 
torical  Association.  To  these  may  be  added  some 
interesting  facts  which  are  not  sufficiently  known  by 
American  students. 

In  the  ninth  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
principally  from  1885  to  1888,  a  few  collectors  of 
American  autographs  united  in  an  informal  association 
which  was  sometimes  called  a  ‘‘Club,”  for  the  purpose 
of  procuring  portraits  of  American  historical  char¬ 
acters  which  they  desired  to  associate  wTith  respective 
autographs  as  extra-illustrations.  They  were  pioneers 
in  their  work  and  their  purposes  were  honorable. 
They  cooperated  in  effort  and  expenses,  in  a  most 
commendable  mutuality.  Prime  movers  and  workers 
were  the  late  Dr.  Emmet,  of  New  York,  and  Simon 
Gratz,  Esq.,  still  active  in  Philadelphia.  These  men 
have  done  much  to  stimulate  appreciation  for  and  the 
preservation  of  the  fundamental  sources  of  American 
history.  When  they  began,  and  for  many  years 
thereafter,  not  the  same  critical  standards  reigned 
among  American  historians,  much  less  among  Ameri¬ 
can  collectors,  as  the  canons  now  require.  The  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  “Club”  entered  into  an  extensive  cor¬ 
respondence  with  the  descendants  of  persons  whose 
portraits  they  wished  to  trace  and  then  have  repro¬ 
duced.  They  were  sometimes  misled  by  these  descend¬ 
ants,  who  themselves,  often  great-grandchildren  or 


NOTES  ON  PORTRAITS 


227 

more  removed  by  ties  and  time,  assumed  that  a  given 
portrait  represented  the  particular  person  in  demand, 
because  in  their  own  uncritical  minds  a  tradition  was 
as  good  as  a  fact. 

The  members  of  the  “Club,”  then,  did  the  best  they 
could  with  the  assistance  and  standards  of  their  time. 
The  following  extract  from  a  letter  written  by  Gratz 
to  Emmet,  November  10,  1885,  reveals  much  that 
should  be  better  known.  He  wrote  very  frankly  as 
follows:  “What  you  say  in  regard  to  Rosenthal’s  work 
is  correct:  but  the  fault  is  not  his.  Many  of  the 
photographs  are  utterly  wanting  in  expression  or 
character;  and  if  the  artist  were  to  undertake  to  cor¬ 
rect  these  deficiencies  by  making  the  portrait  what 
he  may  suppose  it  should  be,  his  production  (while 
presenting  a  better  appearance  artistically)  might  be 
very  much  less  of  a  likeness  than  the  photograph  from 
which  he  works.  Rosenthal  always  shows  me  a  rough 
proof  of  the  unfinished  etching,  so  that  I  may  advise 
him  as  to  corrections  &  additions  which  I  may  consider 
1  justifiable  &  advisable.” 

Other  correspondence  shows  that  Rosenthal  re¬ 
ceived  about  twenty  dollars  for  each  plate  which  he 
1  etched  for  the  “Club.” 

The  following  arrangement  of  data  follows  the  order 
^  of  the  names  as  signed  to  the  Constitution.  The 
Emmet  numbers  identify  the  etchings  in  the  bound 
volume  from  which  they  have  been  reproduced. 

e  1.  George  W ashington,  President  (also  delegate  from 
Virginia),  Emmet  9497,  inscribed  “Joseph 
Wright  Pinxit  Phila.  1784.  Albert  Rosenthal 
r  Phila.  1888.  Aqua  fortis.” 


228 


NOTES  ON  PORTRAITS 
NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


2.  John  Langdon,  Emmet  9439,  inscribed  “Etched 

by  Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.  1888  after  Painting 
by  Trumbull.” 

Mr.  Walter  Langdon,  of  Hyde  Park,  N.  Y., 
in  January,  1885,  sent  to  Dr.  Emmet  a  photo¬ 
graph  of  a  “portrait  of  Governor  John  Lang¬ 
don  LL.D.”  An  oil  miniature  painted  on 
wood  by  Col.  John  Trumbull,  in  1792,  is  in 
the  Yale  School  of  Fine  Arts.  There  is  also  a 
painting  of  Langdon  in  Independence  Hall,  by 
James  Sharpless. 

3.  Nicholas  Gilman ,  Emmet  9441,  inscribed  “Etched 

by  Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.  1888.”  A  drawing 
by  the  same  artist  formerly  hung  in  Independ¬ 
ence  Hall.  The  two  are  not  at  all  alike.  No 
contemporary  attribution  is  made  and  the 
Emmet  correspondence  reveals  nothing. 

MASSACHUSETTS 

4.  Nathaniel  Gorham ,  Emmet  9443.  It  was  etched 

by  Albert  Rosenthal  but  without  inscription  of 
any  kind  or  date.  A  painting  by  him,  in  like¬ 
ness  identical,  formerly  hung  in  Independence 
Hall.  No  evidence  in  Emmet  correspondence. 

5.  Rufus  King ,  Emmet  9445,  inscribed  “Etched  by 

Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.  1888  after  Painting  by 
Trumbull.”  King  was  painted  by  Col.  John  9 
Trumbull  from  life  and  the  portrait  is  in  the 
Yale  School  of  Fine  Arts.  Gilbert  Stuart 
painted  a  portrait  of  King  and  there  is  one  by 
Charles  Willson  Peale  in  Independence  Hall. 


NOTES  ON  PORTRAITS 
CONNECTICUT 


229 


6.  William  Samuel  Johnson ,  Emmet  9447,’  inscribed 

“Etched  by  Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.  1888  from 
Painting  by  Gilbert  Stuart.”  A  painting  by 
Rosenthal  after  Stuart  hung  in  Independence 
Hall.  Stuart’s  portrait  of  Dr.  Johnson  “was 
one  of  the  first,  if  not  the  first,  painted  by 
Stuart  after  his  return  from  England.”  Dated 
on  back  1792.  Also  copied  by  Graham. — 
Mason,  Life  of  Stuart ,  208. 

7.  Roger  Sherman ,  Emmet  9449,  inscribed  “Etched 

by  Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.  1888  after  Painting 
by  Earle.”  The  identical  portrait  copied  by 
Thomas  Hicks,  after  Ralph  Earle,  is  in  Inde¬ 
pendence  Hall. 


NEW  YORK 


8.  Alexander  Hamilton ,  Emmet  9452,  inscribed 
“  Etched  by  Albert  Rosenthal  1888  after  Trum¬ 
bull.”  A  full  length  portrait,  painted  by  Col. 
John  Trumbull,  is  in  the  City  Hall,  New  York. 
Other  Hamilton  portraits  by  Trumbull  are  in 
the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art,  New  York, 
the  Boston  Museum  of  Art,  and  in  private 
possession. 


NEW  JERSEY 


E).  William  Livingston ,  Emmet  9454,  inscribed 
“Etched  by  Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.,  1888.”  A 
similar  portrait,  painted  by  Rosenthal,  formerly 


hung  in  Independence  Hall.  No  correspondence 
relating  to  it  is  in  the  Emmet  Collection. 


230  NOTES  ON  PORTRAITS 

10.  David  Brearley.  There  is  no  portrait.  Emmet 

9456  is  a  drawing  of  a  Brearley  coat-of-arms 
taken  from  a  book-plate. 

11.  William  Paterson ,  Emmet  9458,  inscribed  “Albert 

Rosenthal  Phila.  1888.”  A  painted  portrait 
by  an  unknown  artist  was  hung  in  Independ¬ 
ence  Hall.  The  Emmet  correspondence  re¬ 
veals  nothing. 

12.  Jonathan  Dayton ,  Emmet  9460,  inscribed  “Albert 

Rosenthal.”  A  painting  by  Rosenthal  also 
formerly  hung  in  Independence  Hall.  The 
two  are  dissimilar.  The  etching  is  a  profile, 
but  the  painting  is  nearly  a  full-face  portrait. 
The  Emmet  correspondence  reveals  no  evidence. 

PENNSYLVANIA 

13.  Benjamin  Franklin ,  Emmet  9463,  inscribed  “C. 

W.  Peale  Pinxit.  Albert  Rosenthal  Sc.” 

14.  Thomas  Mifflin ,  Emmet  9466,  inscribed  “Etched 

by  Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.  1888  after  Painting 
by  Gilbert  Stuart.”  A  portrait  by  Charles 
Willson  Peale,  in  civilian  dress,  is  in  Independ¬ 
ence  Hall.  The  Stuart  portrait  shows  Mifflin 
in  military  uniform. 

15.  Robert  Morris ,  Emmet  9470,  inscribed  “Gilbert 

Stuart  Pinxit.  Albert  Rosenthal  Sc.”  The 
original  painting  is  in  the  Historical  Society  of 
Pennsylvania.  Stuart  painted  Morris  in  1795. 
A  copy  was  owned  by  the  late  Charles  Henry 
Hart;  a  replica  also  existed  in  the  possession 
of  Morris’s  granddaughter. — Mason,  Life  of 
Stuart ,  225. 


NOTES  ON  PORTRAITS 


231 


16.  George  Clymer ,  Emmet  9475,  inscribed  “Etched 

by  Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.  1888  after  Painting 
by  C.  W.  Peale.”  There  is  a  similar  type 
portrait,  yet  not  identical,  in  Independence 
Hall,  where  the  copy  was  attributed  to  Dalton 
Edward  Marchant. 

17.  Thomas  Fitzsimons.  There  is  no  portrait  and  the 

Emmet  correspondence  offers  no  information. 

18.  Jared  Ingersoll ,  Emmet  9468,  inscribed  “Etched 

by  Albert  Rosenthal  after  Painting  by  C.  W. 
Peale.”  A  portrait  of  the  same  origin,  said  to 
have  been  copied  by  George  Lambdin,  “after 
Rembrandt  Peale,”  hung  in  Independence 
Hall. 

19.  James  Wilson ,  Emmet  9472,  inscribed  “Etched 

by  Albert  Rosenthal  1888.”  Seems  to  have 
been  derived  from  a  painting  by  Charles  Will- 
son  Peale  in  Independence  Hall. 

20.  Gouverneur  Morris ,  Emmet  9477,  inscribed 

“  Etched  by  Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.  1888  after  a 
copy  by  Marchant  from  Painting  by  T.  Sully.” 
The  Emmet  correspondence  has  no  reference 
to  it. 


DELAWARE 

21.  George  Read ,  Emmet  9479,  inscribed  “Etched  by 
Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.  1888.”  There  is  in 
Emmet  9481  a  stipple  plate  “Engraved  by  J.  B. 

Longacre  from  a  Painting  by - Pine.”  It 

is  upon  the  Longacre-Pine  portrait  that  Rosen¬ 
thal  and  others,  like  H.  B.  Hall,  have  depended 
for  their  portrait  of  Read. 


232 


NOTES  ON  PORTRAITS 


22.  Gunning  Bedford ,  Jr.,  Emmet  9483,  inscribed 

“Etched  by  Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.  1888.” 
Rosenthal  also  painted  a  portrait,  “after 
Charles  Willson  Peale,”  for  Independence  Hall. 
The  etching  is  the  same  portrait.  On  May  13, 
1883,  Mr.  Simon  Gratz  wrote  to  Dr.  Emmet: 
“A  very  fair  lithograph  can,  I  think,  be  made 
from  the  photograph  of  Gunning  Bedford,  Jun. ; 
which  I  have  just  received  from  you.  I  shall 
call  the  artist’s  attention  to  the  excess  of 
shadow  on  the  cravat.”  The  source  was  a 
photograph  furnished  by  the  Bedford  de¬ 
scendants. 

23.  John  Dickinson ,  Emmet  9485,  inscribed  “Etched 

by  Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.  1888  after  Painting 
by  C.  W.  Peale.”  The  Peale  painting  is  in 
Independence  Hall. 

24.  Richard  Bassett ,  Emmet  9487,  inscribed  “Albert 

Rosenthal.”  There  was  also  a  painting  by 
Rosenthal  in  Independence  Hall.  While  simi¬ 
lar  in  type,  they  are  not  identical.  They  vary 
in  physiognomy  and  arrangement  of  hair. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  Emmet  correspondence 
about  this  portrait. 

25.  Jacob  Broom.  There  is  no  portrait  and  no  infor¬ 

mation  in  the  Emmet  correspondence. 

MARYLAND 

26.  James  McHenry ,  Emmet  9490,  inscribed  “Etched 

by  Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.  1888.”  Rosenthal 
also  painted  a  portrait  for  Independence  Hall 
“  after  Saint-Memin.”  They  are  not  alike.  The 


NOTES  ON  PORTRAITS 


233 


etching  faces  three-quarters  to  the  right,  whilst 
the  St.  Memin  is  a  profile  portrait.  In  Janu¬ 
ary,  1885,  Henry  F.  Thompson,  of  Baltimore, 
wrote  to  Dr.  Emmet:  “If  you  wish  them,  you 
can  get  Portraits  and  Memoirs  of  James  Mc¬ 
Henry  and  John  E.  Howard  from  their  grand¬ 
son  J.  Howard  McHenry  whose  address  is  No. 
48  Mount  Vernon  Place,  Baltimore.” 

27.  Daniel  of  St.  Thomas  Jenifer,  Emmet  9494,  in¬ 

scribed  “Etched  by  Albert  Rosenthal  Phila. 
1888  after  Trumbull.”  Rosenthal  also  painted 
a  portrait  for  Independence  Hall.  They  are  not 
identical.  A  drawn  visage  is  presented  in  the 
latter.  In  January,  1885,  Henry  F.  Thompson 
of  Baltimore,  wrote  to  Dr.  Emmet:  “  Mr.  Daniel 
Jenifer  has  a  Portrait  of  his  Grand  Uncle  Daniel 
of  St.  Thomas  Jenifer  and  will  be  glad  to  make 
arrangements  for  you  to  get  a  copy  of  it.  .  .  . 
His  address  is  No.  281  Linden  Ave,  Baltimore.” 
In  June,  of  the  same  year,  Simon  Gratz  wrote 
to  Emmet:  “The  Dan.  of  St.  Thos.  Jenifer  is  so 
bad,  that  I  am  almost  afraid  to  give  it  to  Rosen¬ 
thal.  Have  you  a  better  photograph  of  this 
man  (from  the  picture  in  Washington  [sic.]), 
spoken  of  in  one  of  your  letters?” 

28.  Daniel  Carroll,  Emmet  9492,  inscribed  “  Etched  by 

Albert  Rosenthal,  Phila.  1888.”  Henry  F. 
Thompson,  of  Baltimore,  in  January,  1885, 
wrote  to  Dr.  Emmet:  “If  you  will  write  to 
Genl.  John  Carroll  No.  61  Mount  Vernon 
Place  you  can  get  a  copy  of  Mr.  Carroll’s 
(generally  known  as  Barrister  Carroll)  Por¬ 
trait.” 


234 


NOTES  ON  PORTRAITS 
VIRGINIA 


29.  John  Blair ,  Emmet  9500,  inscribed  “Albert 

Rosenthal  Etcher.”  He  also  painted  a  por¬ 
trait  for  Independence  Hall.  The  two  are  of 
the  same  type  but  not  alike.  The  etching  is  a 
younger  looking  picture.  There  is  no  evidence 
in  the  Emmet  correspondence. 

30.  James  Madison ,  Jr .,  Emmet  9502,  inscribed 

“Etched  by  Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.  1888  after 
Painting  by  G.  Stuart.”  Stuart  painted  sev¬ 
eral  paintings  of  Madison,  as  shown  in  Mason, 
Life  of  Stuart ,  pp.  218-9.  Possibly  the  Rosen¬ 
thal  etching  was  derived  from  the  picture  in  the 
possession  of  the  Coles  family  of  Philadelphia. 

NORTH  CAROLINA 

31.  William  Blount ,  Emmet  9504,  inscribed  “Etched 

by  Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.  1888.”  He  also 
painted  a  portrait  for  Independence  Hall. 
The  two  are  alike.  In  November,  1885,  Moses 
White,  of  Knoxville,  Tenn.,  wrote  thus:  Genl. 
Marcus  J.  Wright,  published,  last  year,  a  life 
of  Wm.  Blount,  which  contains  a  likeness  of 
him.  .  .  .  This  is  the  only  likeness  of  Gov. 
Blount  that  I  ever  saw.”  This  letter  was 
written  to  Mr.  Bathurst  L.  Smith,  who  for¬ 
warded  it  to  Dr.  Emmet. 

32.  Richard  Dohhs  Spaight ,  Emmet  9506,  inscribed 

“Etched  by  Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.  1887.” 
In  Independence  Hall  is  a  portrait  painted  by 
James  Sharpless.  On  comparison  these  two 
are  of  the  same  type  but  not  alike.  The 


NOTES  ON  PORTRAITS 


235 


etching  presents  an  older  facial  appearance. 
On  November  8,  1886,  Gen.  John  Meredith 
Read,  writing  from  Paris,  said  he  had  found  in 
the  possession  of  his  friend  in  Paris,  J.  R.  D. 
Shepard,  “St.  Memin’s  engraving  of  his  great¬ 
grandfather  Governor  Spaight  of  North  Caro¬ 
lina.”  In  1887  and  1888,  Dr.  Emmet  and  Mr. 
Gratz  were  jointly  interested  in  having  Albert 
Rosenthal  engrave  for  them  a  portrait  of 
Spaight.  On  December  9,  1887,  Gratz  wrote 
to  Emmet:  “Spaight  is  worthy  of  being  etched; 
though  I  can  scarcely  agree  with  you  that  our 
lithograph  is  not  a  portrait  of  the  M.  O.  C.  Is 
it  taken  from  the  original  Sharpless  portrait, 
which  hangs  in  our  old  State  House?  .  .  . 
However  if  you  are  sure  you  have  the  right  man 
in  the  photograph  sent,  we  can  afford  to  ignore 
the  lithograph.” 

33.  Hugh  Williamson ,  Emmet  9508,  inscribed 

“Etched  by  Albert  Rosenthal  after  Painting 
by  J.  Trumbull  Phila.  1888,”  Rosenthal  also 
painted  a  copy  “after  John  Wesley  Jarvis”  for 
Independence  Hall.  The  two  are  undoubtedly 
from  the  same  original  source.  The  Emmet 
correspondence  presents  no  information  on  this 
subject. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA 

34.  John  Rutledge ,  Emmet  9510,  inscribed  “Etched 

by  Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.  1888  after  J.  Trum¬ 
bull.”  The  original  painting  was  owned  by  the 
Misses  Rutledge,  of  Charleston,  S.  C 


236 


NOTES  ON  PORTRAITS 


35.  Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney ,  Emmet  9512,  in¬ 

scribed  “Etched  by  Albert  Rosenthal  Phila. 
1888.  Painting  by  Trumbull.”  An  oil  minia¬ 
ture  on  wood  was  painted  by  Col.  John  Trum¬ 
bull,  in  1791,  which  is  in  the  Yale  School  of 
Fine  Arts.  Pinckney  was  also  painted  by 
Gilbert  Stuart  and  the  portrait  was  owned  by 
the  family  at  Runnymeade,  S.  C.  Trumbull’s 
portrait  shows  a  younger  face. 

36.  Charles  Pinckney ,  Emmet  9514,  inscribed  “Etched 

by  Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.  1888.”  He  also 
painted  a  portrait  for  Independence  Hall. 
They  are  alike.  In  the  Emmet  correspondence 
the  following  information,  furnished  to  Dr. 
Emmet,  is  found:  “Chas.  Pinckney — Mr. 
Henry  L.  Pinckney  of  Stateburg  [S.  C.]  has  a 
picture  of  Gov.  Pinckney.”  The  owner  of  this 
portrait  was  a  grandson  of  the  subject.  On 
January  12,  1885,  P.  G.  De  Saussure  wrote  to 
Emmet:  “Half  an  hour  ago  I  received  from  the 
Photographer  two  of  the  Pictures  [one  being] 
Charles  Pinckney  copied  from  a  portrait  owned 
by  Mr.  L.  Pinckney  —  who  lives  in  Stateburg, 
S.  C.”  The  owner  had  put  the  portrait  at  Dr. 
Emmet’s  disposal,  in  a  letter  of  December 
4,  1884,  in  which  he  gave  its  dimensions  as 
“about  3  ft.  nearly  square,”  and  added,  “it  is 
very  precious  to  me.” 

37.  Pierce  Butler ,  Emmet  9516,  inscribed  “Etched  by 

Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.  1888.”  He  also 
painted  a  portrait  for  Independence  Hall. 
They  are  dissimilar  and  dubious.  Three  let¬ 
ters  in  the  Emmet  correspondence  refer  to  the 


NOTES  ON  PORTRAITS 


237 


Butler  portraiture.  On  January  31,  1887, 
Mrs.  Sarah  B.  Wister,  of  Philadelphia,  wrote 
to  Dr.  Emmet:  “I  enclose  photograph  copies 
of  two  miniatures  of  Maj.  Butler  wh.  Mr. 
Louis  Butler  [a  bachelor  then  over  seventy 
years  old  living  in  Paris,  France]  gave  me  not 
long  ago :  I  did  not  know  of  their  existence  until 
1882,  &  never  heard  of  any  likeness  of  my  great¬ 
grandfather,  except  an  oil-portrait  wh.  was  last 
seen  more  than  thirty  years  ago  in  a  lumber 
room  in  his  former  house  at  the  n.  w.  corner  of 
8th  &  Chestnut  streets  [Phila.],  since  then 
pulled  down.”  On  February  8th,  Mrs.  Wister 
wrote:  “I  am  not  surprised  that  the  two  minia¬ 
tures  do  not  strike  you  as  being  of  the  same 
person.  Yet  I  believe  there  is  no  doubt  of  it; 
my  cousin  had  them  from  his  father  who  was 
Maj.  Butler’s  son.  The  more  youthful  one  is 
evidently  by  a  poor  artist,  &  therefore  probably 
was  a  poor  likeness.”  In  her  third  letter  to 
Dr.  Emmet,  on  April  5,  1888,  Mrs.  Wister 
wrote:  “I  sent  you  back  the  photo,  from  the 
youthful  miniature  of  Maj.  Butler  &  regret 
very  much  that  I  have  no  copy  of  the  other 
left;  but  four  sets  were  made  of  wh.  I  sent 
you  one  &  gave  the  others  to  his  few  living 
descendants.  I  regret  this  all  the  more  as 
I  am  reluctant  to  trust  the  miniature  again 
to  a  photographer.  I  live  out  of  town  so  that 
there  is  some  trouble  in  sending  &  calling  for 
them;  (I  went  personally  last  time,  &  there 
are  no  other  likenesses  of  my  great  grandfather 
extant.” 


238 


NOTES  ON  PORTRAITS 


GEORGIA 

38.  William  Few ,  Emmet  9518,  inscribed  “Etched  by 

Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.  1888.”  He  also 
painted  a  portrait  “after  John  Ramage,”  for 
Independence  Hall.  They  are  identical. 

39.  Abraham  Baldwin ,  Emmet  9520,  inscribed  “  Etched 

by  Albert  Rosenthal  Phila.  1888.”  There  is 
also  a  painting  “after  Fulton”  in  Independ¬ 
ence  Hall.  They  are  of  the  same  type  but  not 
exactly  alike,  yet  likely  from  the  same  original. 
The  variations  may  be  just  artist’s  vagaries. 
There  is  no  information  in  the  Emmet  corre¬ 
spondence. 

40.  William  Jackson ,  Secretary,  Emmet  9436,  in¬ 

scribed  “Etched  by  Albert  Rosenthal  Phila. 
1888  after  Painting  by  J.  Trumbull.”  Rosen¬ 
thal  also  painted  a  copy  after  Trumbull  for 
Independence  Hall.  They  are  identical. 


i 


INDEX 


A 

Adams,  John,  on  American 
Peace  Commission,  9  et  seq 
personal  characteristics,  10; 
negotiates  commercial  treaty 
with  the  Netherlands,  11; 
on  fisheries  question,  13-14; 
on  settlement  of  commer¬ 
cial  indebtedness,  14-15;  on 
granting  compensation  to 
Loyalists,  20;  complains  of 
trade  restrictions  for  New 
England,  26 

Adams,  Samuel,  and  the  Con¬ 
stitution,  151,  152 

Albany  Congress  (1754),  49, 
50 

Annapolis  Trade  Convention 
(1786),  100-06 

Anti-Federalist  party,  147 

Articles  of  Confederation,  adop¬ 
tion  (1777),  49-50;  ratifica¬ 
tion  (1781),  50,  57-59;  based 
on  Franklin’s  plan  of  union, 
51-52;  provisions,  52-54,  67- 
68,  86,  100;  questions  of  land 
ownership  delay  ratification, 
56-57,  58;  financial  power  of 
Congress  under,  86;  failure 
of  Commercial  amendment 
of  1784,  99;  relation  to 
Constitution,  125,  131,  144; 
defects  corrected  in  Con¬ 
stitution,  142;  attempt  at 
revision,  144-45;  text,  175- 
189 

Assenisipia,  69 


B 

Bancroft,  George,  History  of 
the  Formation  of  the  Con- 
sitution,  cited,  103  (note) 
Biddle,  Charles,  Autobiogra¬ 
phy ,  on  the  Constitution, 
141 

Bowdoin,  James,  Governor  of 
Massachusetts,  and  Shays’ 
Rebellion,  94,  95 
Bryce,  Lord,  cited,  13  (note) 

C 

Cambridge  (Mass.),  Shays’  Re¬ 
bellion  at,  94 

Canada,  Loyalists  go  to,  19; 
Articles  of  Confederation  on 
admitting,  67 

Channing,  Edward,  History  of 
the  United  States,  cited,  21 
(note),  61  (note) 
Cherronesus,  69 
China,  trade  with,  28 
Combe,  George,  Tour  of  the 
United  States,  quoted,  45 
Commerce,  before  Revolution, 
24;  conditions  after  Revo¬ 
lution,  24-27;  commercial 
treaties,  26;  development  of 
trade  with  Far  East,  28; 
phases  of  United  States 
foreign  trade,  28-29;  domes¬ 
tic  trade,  29-30;  policy  of 
reprisal,  97-99 

Committees  of  Correspond¬ 
ence,  49 


239 


240 


INDEX 


Confederation,  the,  35  et  seq ., 
108;  see  also  Articles  of 
Confederation 

Congress,  Continental,  advises 
States  to  adopt  governments, 
38;  prints  constitutions,  41; 
Declaration  of  Independ¬ 
ence,  49,  63,  143-44,  167-74; 
Articles  of  Confederation, 
49-50,  51;  see  also  Articles  of 
Confederation;  Franklin’s 
plan  of  union,  50-51;  com¬ 
position,  85;  financial  prob¬ 
lem,  85-86 

Congress,  Federal,  52-53;  pow¬ 
ers  and  duties,  53-54;  and 
Northwest  Territory,  62; 
national  system  of  coinage, 
63-64;  Land  Ordinance 
(1785),  64-66,  71;  Jefferson’s 
Ordinance  of  1784,  69-71,  75; 
Ordinance  of  1787,  72-80, 
190-200;  inefficiency,  81-84, 
127;  Revenue  Amendment, 
87;  financial  crisis,  87-88; 
commercial  amendment  of 
1784,  98-99;  calls  Federal 
Convention,  106;  reception 
of  Constitution,  145-46; 
votes  that  presidential  elec¬ 
tors  be  chosen  (1788),  163 

Congress,  United  States,  Con¬ 
stitutional  powers  and  limi¬ 
tations,  127-29,  130,  131, 
136;  objection  to  excessive 
power  of,  161;  revenue  act 
^  (1789),  159 

Connecticut,  State  govern¬ 
ment,  44;  ratification  of  Con¬ 
stitution,  149-50 

Constitution,  development  of, 
108  et  seq.,  125  et  seq.’  great 
compromise  of,  121-23,  127; 
transmitted  to  Congress, 
145-46;  contest  over  ratifi¬ 
cation,  146  et  seq.;  framed  by 
propertied  interests,  162- 
163;  text,  201-18;  bibliog¬ 
raphy,  221-22 


Cook,  Captain  James,  28 
Cornwallis,  General  Edward, 
surrender  at  Yorktown 
^  (1781),  5 

Crevecceur,  letter  to  Jefferson, 
165 

Cutler,  Manasseh,  73-74 
D 

Day,  Clive,  Encyclopedia  of 
American  Government,  cited, 
26  (note) 

Declaration  of  Independence, 
adopted,  49;  Jefferson  drafts, 
63;  charges  against  the  King, 
143-44;  text,  167-74 
Delaware,  and  western  land 
policy,  57;  Annapolis  Trade 
Convention,  100;  ratifica¬ 
tion  of  Constitution,  149 
Dickerson,  Senator,  of  New 
Jersey,  quoted,  78 
Dickinson,  John,  chairman  of 
committee  to  prepare  Ar¬ 
ticles  of  Confederation,  49, 
51,  114;  against  centralized 
government,  114 
District  of  Columbia,  fear  of  a 
fortified  stronghold,  161 
Duer,  Colonel  William,  74 
Dunn,  J.  P.,  Jr.,  Indiana:  A 
Redemption  from  Slavery, 
quoted,  71 

Dunning,  W.  A.,  The  British 
Empire  and  the  United  States, 
cited,  13  (note) 

E 

Elliot’s  Debates  on  the  Federal 
Constitution,  cited  160  (note) 
Ellsworth,  Oliver,  delegate  to 
Federal  Convention,  115, 
124;  on  slavery,  130;  report 
on  Rhode  Island’s  ratifica¬ 
tion  of  Constitution,  159 
England,  see  Great  Britain 
Executive,  see  President 


INDEX 


24 1 


F 

Federal  Convention,  106-07, 
108  et  seq.;  Records,  cited, 
30  (note) 

Federalist,  The,  157 

Federalist  party,  147 

Finance,  questions  of  settle¬ 
ment  of  debts,  14-15,  147- 
148;  condition  of  currency, 
31-32;  national  system  of 
coinage,  63-64;  Revenue 
Amendment,  87;  financial 
crisis,  87-88;  revenue  act 
(1789),  159 

Fish,  C.  R.,  American  Diplo¬ 
macy,  quoted,  27 

Fisheries,  13-14,  25 

Fiske,  John,  The  Critical  Pe¬ 
riod  of  American  History, 
quoted,  81 

France,  attitude  toward  United 
States,  4-5;  relationship  of 
United  States  with,  6-8; 
treaty  with  United  States 
(1778),  7;  excludes  United 
States  shipping,  26-27 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  author¬ 
ized  to  negotiate  consular 
convention  with  France,  5; 
on  Peace  Commission,  8-9, 
11-12,  21;  personal  charac¬ 
teristics,  9;  on  settlement  of 
debts,  14;  Albany  plan,  50; 
presents  plan  of  union  to 
Continental  Congress  (1775), 
50-52;  in  Federal  Conven¬ 
tion,  113,  120;  on  the  new 
republic,  134-35;  personal 
charge  against,  161;  bibliog¬ 
raphy,  222 

French  and  Indian  War,  effect 
on  settlement,  56 

G 

Georgia,  ratification  of  Con¬ 
stitution,  149 

Germany,  American  mission¬ 
ary  societies,  3 
16 


Gerry,  Elbridge,  115,  132,  135 
Gorham,  Nathaniel, 113-14, 124 
Grayson,  William,  of  Virginia, 
^  64;  quoted,  76-77 
Great  Britain,  attitude  toward 
former  colonies,  3;  American 
missionary  societies,  3;  ad¬ 
mits  independence  of  colo¬ 
nies,  6;  France  and,  7 ;  Spain 
and,  7;  and  United  States 
boundary  lines,  12-13;  and 
fisheries,  13-14;  relation  to 
American  trade,  24-28,  97- 
98;  compact  theory  of  gov¬ 
ernment  in,  39;  military 
posts  retained  by,  84-85 
Grigsby,  H.  B.,  quoted,  15-16 

H 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  at  Anna¬ 
polis  Trade  Convention,  104, 
105;  personal  characteristics, 
104-05;  at  Federal  Conven¬ 
tion,  115-16,  120;  on  com¬ 
mittee  to  revise  Constitu¬ 
tion,  140;  and  The  Federalist, 
156-57;  influence  in  New 
York  convention,  157;  bibli¬ 
ography,  222 

Hancock,  John,  150,  151-52 
Henry,  Prince,  of  Prussia,  ap¬ 
proached  on  subject  of  be¬ 
coming  king  of  United  States, 
134 

Henry,  Patrick,  61,  63,  155 
Hopkinson,  letter  to  Jefferson, 
161 

Hutchins,  Thomas,  Geographer 
of  the  United  States,  64 

I 

Illinoia,  69 

Illinois  admitted  as  State 
(1818),  79 

Independent  Gazetteer,  The,  156 
Indian  Queen  Tavern,  dele¬ 
gates  to  Federal  Convention 
at,  109 


242 


INDEX 


Indiana  admitted  as  State 
(1816),  79 

J 

Jameson,  J.  F.,  quoted,  59- 
60 

Jay,  John,  on  reciprocity  of 
consular  convention  with 
France,  5;  Peace  Commis¬ 
sioner,  10,  11;  personal  char¬ 
acteristics,  10-11;  sent  to 
Spain,  11;  on  settlement  of 
debts,  15;  on  compensation 
to  Loyalists,  20;  and  The 
Federalist,  156-57 
Jefferson,  Ferdinand,  quoted, 
174  (note) 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  on  Peace 
Commission,  10;  and  land 
policy,  62-64;  life  and  char¬ 
acteristics,  62-63;  Ordinance 
of  1784,  67,  69-71,  75;  on 
value  of  Continental  scrip, 
88-89;  opinion  of  Federal 
Convention,  109, 116;  spokes¬ 
man  for  colonies,  143;  on 
ratification  of  Constitution, 
152;  Hopkinson’s  letter  to, 
161;  Crevecoeur’s  letter  to, 
165;  bibliography,  222 
Jefferson’s  Ordinance  of  1784, 
see  Ordinance  of  1784 
Jenifer,  Daniel  of  St.  Thomas, 

153-54 

Johnson,  Dr.  W.  S.,  115,  140 
Judiciary,  131-33 

K 

Kent,  Chancellor,  61 
Kercheval,  Samuel,  History  of 
theV  alley  of  Virginia,  quoted, 
33-34 

King,  Rufus,  in  Federal  Con¬ 
vention,  113,  132,  140;  on 
three-fifths  rule,  122;  on 
form  of  executive,  134 
Knox,  Henry,  61 


L 

Lafayette,  Marquis  de,  Wash¬ 
ington’s  letter  to,  164-65 

La  Luzerne,  Chevalier  de, 
French  Minister  in  Phila¬ 
delphia,  7 

Land,  question  of  ownership  of 
western,  56-57;  cession  to 
United  States  by  States, 

58- 59;  American  interest  in, 

59- 62;  Jefferson  and  land 
policy,  62-64;  plan  for  sale 
under  Ordinance  of  1785, 
65-66 

Land  Ordinance  of  1785,  64-66, 
71 

Lansing,  John,  116 

Laurens,  Henry,  10 

Lecky,  W.  E.  H.,  The  American 
Revolution,  cited,  32  (note) 

Lincoln,  General  Benjamin, 
and  Shays’  Rebellion,  94; 
letter  to  Washington,  152- 
153 

Lingelbach,  Wr.  E.,  cited,  3 
(note) 

Loyalists,  question  of  compen¬ 
sation  of,  16-17,  19-20; 

groups  comprising,  17;  treat¬ 
ment  of,  18-19;  Commis¬ 
sioners  agree  to  restitution,  20 

M 

McMaster,  J.  B.,  History  of  the 
People  of  the  United  States, 
quoted,  31;  Acquisition  of 
Industrial,  Popular,  and  Po¬ 
litical  Rights  of  Man  in 
America,  quoted,  45 

Madison,  James,  describes 
trade  situation,  30;  on  viola¬ 
tion  of  federal  authority  by 
Virginia,  100-01;  personal 
characteristics,  103-04;  and 
Annapolis  Trade  Conven¬ 
tion,  104;  quoted,  108;  Wash¬ 
ington  and.  111;  for  strong 


INDEX 


243 


Madison,  James — Continued 
central  government,  115; 
in  Federal  Convention,  111, 
132,  140;  supports  Con¬ 

stitution,  155;  and  The  Fed¬ 
eralist,  156-57 

Martin,  Luther,  116,  132,  153 
Maryland,  and  land  claims,  57, 
58;  suggestion  as  to  power  of 
Congress  over  western  land, 
68;  agreement  with  Virginia, 
100,  104;  ratification  of  Con¬ 
stitution,  153-54 
Mason,  George,  112,  132,  155 
Massachusetts,  State  Constitu¬ 
tion  submitted  to  people  for 
approval,  46;  Shays’  Rebel¬ 
lion  (1786),  91-96;  ratifica¬ 
tion  of  Constitution,  150-53 
Mayflower  Compact,  40 
Mesopotamia,  69 
Michigania,  69 

Mississippi  River,  right  of 
navigation  declared,  14 
Monroe,  James,  invests  in 
western  land,  61;  Grayson 
writes  to,  76 

Morris,  Gouverneur,  invests  in 
western  land,  61;  quoted, 
108,  140;  in  Federal  Con¬ 
vention,  112-13,  132,  140; 
and  Washington,  113  (note) 
Morris,  Robert,  invests  in 
western  land,  61 

N 

Navigation  Acts,  24,  27 
Netherlands,  the,  commercial 
treaty  with,  11 

New  England,  prosperity  due 
to  commerce,  24;  effect  of 
trade  restrictions  on,  26; 
“plantation  covenants’’  40; 
system  of  land  grant,  65; 
interest  in  trade,  97;  favors 
navigation  acts,  129 
New  England  Confederation 
(1643),  48 


New  Hampshire,  Vermont 
withdraws  from  New  York 
and,  68;  and  Federal  Con¬ 
vention,  106-07;  ratification 
of  Constitution,  154-55,  157 
New  Jersey,  ratification  of 
Constitution,  149 
New  Jersey  Plan,  118,  119, 
121,  125-26 

New  York  cession  of  western 
land  claims  to  United  States, 
58,  59;  Vermont  withdraws 
from  New  Hampshire  and, 
68;  refuses  to  accede  to 
Revenue  Amendment,  88; 
ratification  of  Constitution, 
150,  156-58 

New  York  City  chosen  as  seat 
of  government,  163 
Newburg  on  the  Hudson,  mu¬ 
tinous  Revolutionary  sol¬ 
diers  at,  81-82 
Newfoundland,  fisheries,  13 
North  Carolina,  ratification  of 
Constitution,  158 
Northwest  Ordinance,  55  et 
seq .;  see  also  Land  Ordinance 
of  1785,  Ordinance  of  1784, 
Ordinance  of  1787 
Northwest  Territory,  settle¬ 
ment,  55-56;  States  relin¬ 
quish  claims,  57-59;  ques¬ 
tions  of  land  sale  and  govern¬ 
ment,  62  et  seq. 

O 

Ohio  admitted  as  State  (1802), 
78 

OhioCompanyof  Associates, 72 
Ordinance  of  1784,67,69-71,75 
Ordinance  of  1785,  see  Land 
Ordinance  of  1785 
Ordinance  of  1787,  Congress 
adopts,  72;  stimulus  from 
Ohio  Company,  72-74;  au¬ 
thorship,  75;  provisions,  75- 
77;  successful  operation,  77- 
80;  text,  190-200 


244 


INDEX 


Oregon,  question  of  military 
occupation  (1825),  77-78 
Otto,  Louis,  French  Charge 
d’Affaires,  letter  to  Ver- 
gennes,  101-03 

P 

Panic  of  1785,  30-31 
Paterson,  William,  against  plan 
of  centralized  government, 
114 

Pelisipia,  69 

Pennsylvania,  invited  to  form 
commercial  policy  with  other 
States,  100;  ratification  of 
Constitution,  148-49 
Philadelphia,  enthusiasm  for 
Constitution  in,  148,  149 
Philadelphia  Convention,  see 
Federal  Convention 
Pilgrim  Fathers,  Mayflower 
Compact,  40 

Pinckney,  Charles,  114,  126 
Pinckney,  General  C.  C.,  114 
Political  parties,  146-47;  see 
also  names  of  parties 
Polypotamia,  69 
Pontiac’s  Conspiracy,  effect 
on  settlement,  56 
Potomac  River,  agreement  be¬ 
tween  Virginia  and  Mary¬ 
land  regarding,  100 
President,  creation  of  office, 
133-34;  presidency  modeled 
after  State  governorships, 
134;  election  of,  136-37; 
third  term,  137-38;  powers, 
138;  Washington  chosen  as 
first,  138-39 

Princeton,  Congress  flees  to, 
84 

Proclamation  of  1763,  56,  57 
R 

Randolph,  Edmund,  112,  124; 
quoted,  134 

Read,  W.  T.,  Life  and  Corre¬ 


spondence  of  George  Read , 
quoted,  113  (note) 
“Revolution  of  1789,”  144 
Revolutionary  War,  effect  on 
American  people,  22;  eco¬ 
nomic  conditions  after,  23 
et  seq. 

Rhode  Island,  State  govern¬ 
ment,  44;  and  question  of 
western  land  ownership, 
57;  rejects  tariff  provision 
(1782),  86;  currency  trouble 
(1786),  89-90;  attitude  to¬ 
ward  Shays’  Rebellion,  95; 
recognition  of  bad  trade  con¬ 
ditions,  96;  and  Federal 
Convention,  106;  ratifica¬ 
tion  of  Constitution,  158, 
159 

Roads,  see  Transportation 
Rousseau,  J.  J.,  Contrat  Social, 
39-40 

Russia,  trade  with,  28 
Rutledge,  John,  114,  124,  125 

S 

St.  Clair,  General  Arthur,  Cut¬ 
ler  endorses  for  governorship 
of  New  York,  74 
Saratoga,  69 
Scioto  Associates,  74 
Shays,  Daniel,  94 
Shays’  Rebellion  (1786),  91-96 
Sherman,  Roger,  115 
Slavery,  Ordinance  of  1784  on, 
70;  Ordinance  of  1787  on, 
76-77;  counting  of  slaves 
in  enumerating  population, 
121-22;  attitude  of  Federal 
Convention  delegates  to¬ 
ward,  130 

Slave  trade,  compromise  con¬ 
cerning,  129-30 
South,  system  of  land  grant, 
65;  need  for  slaves,  129 
South  Carolina,  class  control 
in,  45;  ratification  of  Con¬ 
stitution,  154 


INDEX 


245 


Spain,  France  and,  7-8;  and 
United  States,  8;  possessions 
in  America,  8;  Jay  sent  to, 
11;  excludes  United  States 
shipping,  26 

Stamp  Act  Congress  (1765), 
49 

Stark,  J.  H.,  quoted,  18-19 
State  governments,  establish¬ 
ment  of,  38;  constitutions, 
41-43;  identical  with  colon¬ 
ial,  44;  aristocratic  tenden¬ 
cies,  44-45,  47-48;  demo¬ 
cratic  tendencies,  46-47,  48 
Steiner,  B.  C.,  Connecticut' s 
Ratification  of  the  Federal 
Constitution,  quoted,  159- 
160 

Suffrage,  36-37,  45 
Supreme  Court  established, 
131;  see  also  Judiciary 
Sylvania,  69 

T 

Thieriot,  Saxon  Commissioner 
of  Commerce  to  America, 
quoted.  3,  4-5 
Tory  party,  146 
Transportation,  29-30;  see  also 
Commerce 

Treaty  of  Peace  (1783),  1  et 
seq.\  ratified,  21;  determines 
boundaries,  12-13,  56;  bibli¬ 
ography  of  diplomatic  his¬ 
tory  connected  with,  220 
Trevett  vs.  Weeden  (1786),  90- 
91 

Tuckerman,  Henry,  America 
and  her  Commentators,  cited, 
33  (note) 

U 

United  Empire  Loyalists,  19 
United  States,  named,  1;  sta¬ 
tus  as  new  republic,  1-5; 
population,  2-3,  35,  55-56; 
boundaries,  12-13,  56;  eco¬ 


nomic  condition  after  Revo¬ 
lution,  23  et  seq.;  commercial 
treaties,  26;  aristocratic  con¬ 
trol  in,  36,  44-45;  suffrage 
after  the  Revolution,  36-37; 
political  genius  in,  37-38; 
see  also  names  of  States, 
State  governments 

V 

Vergennes,  Comte  de,  French 
Minister,  Franklin  and,  21; 
Otto’s  letter  to,  101-03 

Vermont,  withdraws  from  New 
York  and  New  Hampshire, 
68;  attitude  in  Shays’  Re¬ 
bellion,  95 

Vincennes,  effect  of  Ordinance 
of  1784  on,  71 

Virginia,  abolishes  primogeni¬ 
ture,  46;  cession  of  western 
claims  to  United  States,  58, 
59,  62;  agreement  with 

Maryland,  100;  and  Anna¬ 
polis  Trade  Convention, 
100-01,  103-04;  ratification 
of  Constitution,  150,  155- 
156,  157 

Virginia  Plan,  117-19,  121-22, 
123,  126-27,  144 

Virginia  Resolutions,  see  Vir¬ 
ginia  Plan 

W 

Warden,  John,  Grigsby’s  story 
of,  15-16 

Warville,  Brissot  de,  quoted, 
32-33 

Washington,  George,  invests 
in  western  land,  61;  influ¬ 
ence  over  disaffected  soldiers, 
82-83;  in  Federal  Conven¬ 
tion,  110-11;  and  Madison, 
111;  and  Morris,  113  (note); 
chosen  as  President,  139; 
Lincoln’s  letter  to,  152-53; 


246 


INDEX 


Washington,  George — Confd 
supports  Constitution,  155; 
personal  charge  against,  161 ; 
letter  to  Lafayette,  164-65; 
inauguration,  166 
Washington,  name  given  divi¬ 
sion  of  Northwest  Territory, 
69 

Webster,  Daniel,  on  Ordinance 
of  1787,  79-80 


West  Indies,  trade  with,  28,  27, 
97 

Whig  party,  146-47 
Wilson,  James,  61,  108,  112. 

115,  124,  132 
Wythe,  George,  63,  112 

Y 

Yates,  Robert,  116 


w 


'  * 


boston  college 


9031  01456488 

I  bo  88 


ffriRriO'A  /  r'O^V- 


£  ns.x 
.css 


VJ5 


Boston  College  Library 

Chestnut  Hill  67,  Mass. 

Books  may  be  kept  for  two  weeks  unless  a 
shorter  time  is  specified. 

Two  cents  a  day  is  charged  for  each  2-week  book 
kept  overtime;  25  cents  a  day  for  each  overnight 
book. 

If  you  cannot  find  what  you  want,  inquire  at  the 
delivery  desk  for  assistance. 


6-49 


